The interpretation of the term 'locality' in the proviso to Clause 45(2) of the Kerala Rationing Order should not be limited to residence in the Panchayat and should be understood as a place within a reasonable distance of the ration shop, especially taking into account the convenience of the people in the area to have access to the shop.

A new ration shop was sanctioned at Kallimoodu in Ward No.VI of Vellarada Panchayat. 4th respondent by Ext.P-1 notification dated 14-8-1985 invited applications for appointment as authorised retail distributor for the newly sanctioned shop. Petitioner, 5th respondent and several others applied for appointment as authorised retail distributor pursuant to Ext.P-1.4th respondent considered the applications and by order dated 16-5-1986 (Ext.P-2) appointed the 5th respondent as the authorised retail distributor. The appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P-2 order before the 3rd respondent was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a resident of Ottasekharamangalam Panchayat, whereas the 5th respondent is a resident of Vellarada Panchayat. Ext.P-3 is the order dated 5-12-1987 passed by the 3rd respondent. However, in Ext.P-3, it was made clear that the petitioner is better qualified to be appointed as authorised retail distributor than the 5th respondent. Revisions filed by the petitioner against Ext.P-3 order before the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent were dismissed. Exts. P-4 and P-5 are the orders. In this Original Petition petitioner challenges Exts. P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5 orders.

2. Petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent was not justified in rejecting his appeal after finding that he is better qualified than the 5th respondent. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the true scope of the word 'locality' used in the proviso to clause 45(2) of the Rationing Order has not been correctly understood by the 3rd respondent as well as respondents 2 and 1 while passing Exts.P-3, P4 and P-5 orders. Counsel submitted that the term 'locality' is no where defined as residence in the Panchayat. Counsel pointed out that the petitioner is residing nearer to the shop offered by him than 51h respondent to his shop. Petitioner is residing about 21/2 K.M away from the shop offered by him, whereas the 51h respondent is residing 41/2 KM. away from the shop offered by him. Counsel argued that as the petitioner is residing much nearer to the shop offered by him than the 5th respondent he should be considered as the one. residing in the locality.

3. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that when a ration shop is sanctioned in Ward No.VI of Vellarada Panchayat the applicant who offered a shop in Ward No.VI ought to have been preferred than the applicant who offered a shop in Ward No.VII. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the object of sanctioning a ration shop in Ward No.VI is to meet the requirements of the residents in that ward and the appointment of the person who offered a shop in Ward No.VII as the authorised retail dealer is detrimental to the interests of the people.

4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether residence of an applicant in the Panchayat should be considered as the sine qua non for getting appointment as authorised retail distributor under the Kerala Rationing Order. The third proviso to Clause 45(2) of the Kerala Rationing Order states that a person who is not normally resident in the locality shall not be appointed as ARD. In this case the 5th respondent who offered a shop in Ward VII resides 41/2 K.M. away from the shop, but in the same Panchayat. Petitioner offered a shop in the same ward (Ward No.VI) itself, but resides in another Panchayat. The distance between the shop offered by him and his residence is only 21/2 K.M.

5. The word 'locality' in the proviso to Clause 45(2) cannot be given such a restricted meaning as done in Exts.P3, P4 and P5. The scope of the word 'locality' used in the proviso cannot be held to coincide within the limits of a Corporation, Municipality or Panchayat. The meaning of the word resident in the 'locality' cannot be restricted to an area in the Panchayat in a case where the petitioner has offered a building for housing the ration shop in the ward for which notification has been specifically made and when he resides in the neighborhood tho