AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—In this writ petition, challenge is against Exts.P18 and P19. Ext.P18 is an order passed by the 1st respondent exercising his powers under the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as AWD No. v. of Thiruvananthapuram District. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner resulting in Ext.P11 order dated 04/07/2009, imposing a penalty. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. That appeal was disposed of by Ext.P13 order dated 24/11/2009 cancelling the licence itself.
Ext.P13 order was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No. 34333/2009, in which Ext.P14 interim order was passed. Against that interim order, the official respondents therein, who are the respondents in this writ petition, filed W.A. No. 2856/2009. The Writ Appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P15 judgment dated 28/01/2010. In Ext.P15 judgment, this Court has specifically dealt with the illegality of the action of the 1st respondent in having terminated the AWD of the petitioner in an appeal filed by him, against the order imposing a much lesser punishment. After pointing out the said illegality and setting aside Ext.P13 order, this Court disposed of the writ petition and the writ appeal directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P16 notice to the petitioner posting the appeal to 15/07/2010. This notice did not contain any proposal to enhance the penalty that was imposed on the petitioner. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared for hearing and submitted Ext.P17 hearing note. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, passed fresh orders evidenced by Ext.P18, terminating the AWD as he had done on the previous occasion, which was specifically disapproved by this Court in Ext.P15 judgment. It is challenging Exts.P18 and P19, the consequential action taken, this writ petition has been filed.
In view of the specific directions contained in Ext.P15 judgment of this Court, and as Ext.P18 order passed by the 1st respondent was directly in conflict with the said directions contained in Ext.P15 judgment, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions from the 1st respondent about the circumstances in which the order was passed. This was for the reason that this Court was prima facie of the view that Ext.P18 order reflects disobedience of the directions in Ext.P15 judgment. However, on instructions, the learned Government Pleader confessed that it was on account of a bonafide mistake on the part of the 1st respondent that the order happened to be passed in the manner, it is seen in Ext.P18 order. According to him, the 1st respondent was of the impression that Ext.P9 show cause notice justified his action.
Although learned Counsel for the petitioner disputes the bonafides canvassed by the learned Government Pleader, still as at present, I accept the submission made by the learned Government Pleader and refrain from proceeding further in the matter.
For the aforesaid reason itself, Ext.P18 order cannot be sustained. Therefore, Exts.P18 and P19, the consequential action, will stand quashed. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1st respondent to carry out the directions as contained in Ext.P15 judgment of this Court, in accordance with law.
Now that Exts.P18 and P19 are quashed, the AWD will stand revived and the petitioner will be entitled to commence operation of the depot, and needful shall be done by the respondents in this matter on the production of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.