V. K. Bali, J.

A Division Bench of this Court in Jose v. Nesamony (1994 (1) KLT 369) while dealing with the meaning of the expression 'normally resident in the locality' in clause 45(1) of Rationing Order, 1966 (Kerala), hereinafter referred to as 'Order of 1966', held that it would be the normal residence of the person in the Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation area, where the ration shop is sanctioned by the authorities. When this Original Petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, he referred the matter to a Division Bench by observing that neither in the provisions of Order of 1966 nor in the decision of the Division Bench in Jose v. Nesamony (supra) it has been clearly mentioned as to whether an applicant who resides in the same Panchayat, but in a different Ward, for which sanction was accorded, can be called 'normally resident in that locality' and, therefore, the matter required to be decided by the Division Bench. The Division Bench, however, doubted the very correctness of the decision in Jose v. Nesamony (supra) and, thus, referred the matter to the Full Bench to examine the correctness thereof.

2. In the context of the reference thus doubting the decision of the Division Bench in Jose v. Nesamony (supra), it may not be necessary to give facts in all its minute details. Suffice it, however, to mention that C. Selvaraj, the petitioner herein, and D. Amose, the 5th respondent in the Original Petition, are fighting each other for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor (A.R.D.) in Pulinkudi, of Ward III of Ariyancode Panchayat in pursuance of a notification issued way back on 5th May, 1993. In this period of more than a decade, it is the second round of litigation in this Court.

3. The District Supply Officer, Thiruvananthapuram invited applications for appointment as Authorised Retail Distributor in Pulinkudi, of Ward No. III of Ariyancode Panchayat, vide notification dated 5.5.1993. The petitioner herein, who was residing in Ward No. Ill of Ariyancode Panchayat where the A.R.D. was notified, applied pursuant to the notification aforesaid. The 5th respondent too was an applicant for the same. He was, however residing in Ward No. II of the same Panchayat. There were some other claimants also, but at this stage the contest is between the petitioner and the 5th respondent only. The 4th respondent vide order dated 28/05/1993 appointed the petitioner as Authorised Retail Distributor (Ext. P2). Constrained, the 5th respondent along with another applicant filed appeal under clause 45(10) of the Order of 1966 before the 3rd respondent, who, vide order dated 12.3.1994 set aside Ext. P2 and remitted the matter to the District Supply Officer to re-examine the matter and pass orders thereafter (Ext. P4). Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioner preferred a revision under clause 45(1) of the Order of 1966 before the 2nd respondent. Against the very same order, the 5th respondent also filed a revision. The same was dismissed without even taking the same on file. The 2nd respondent allowed the revision filed by the petitioner vide order dated 15.3.1995 by observing that the A.R.D. was notified for Ward No. III and the 5th respondent was residing in Ward No. II, whereas the petitioner was residing in Ward No. III (Ext. P7). The fluctuation in the fate between the parties, this time constrained the 5th respondent to file OP No.4408 of 1995 in this Court and vide order dated 18.1.1996, the 5th respondent was relegated to the remedy of revision before the Government. The revision was directed to be disposed of within three months and till such time the revision was to be disposed of the order Ext. P7 dated 15.3.1995 was directed to be kept in abeyance. Both the petitioner and 5th respondent were aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge and preferred Writ Appeals, which were disposed of by a common order dated 26.2.1996 (Ext. P9). Learned Division Bench of this Court modifie