IMPORTANT POINTS
• Whether an opportunity has to be given before issuing a temporary suspension pending enquiry-Temporary suspension pending enquiry is permissible in law. It is worthwhile to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench and the decision on the issue of providing an opportunity before temporary suspension.
• The power is given to the District Authorities or to the Civil Supplies Department. Taking into account the purpose and object of second part of sub-clause(8) of Clause 45, there may be an emergent situation where authority has to immediately suspend or close the shop and take such action which may prohibit the dealer not to supply further commodities. In the event it is held that in each and every case notice is to be given, the purpose and object in drafting the second part of sub-clause (8) of Clause 45 shall be defeated. The last line of second part has been thus added with some purpose and putting the interpretation that no notice need be issued will defeat the purpose and object.

JUDGMENT :

S.Manikumar, J.

Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 04.12.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.33016 of 2019, by which a learned Single Judge of this Court held as under:

“6. If as a matter of fact the aforesaid irregularities were noticed, the competent authority under the Rationing Order cannot be found fault with for having placed the dealership under suspension, for the power under Clause 45(8) of the Rationing Order is contemplated to be exercised in such cases. In the absence of any specific case of malice attributed against the first respondent for suspending the dealership of the petitioner without any cause, the correctness of the factual allegations made against the petitioner is a matter to be considered only at the time of enquiry contemplated against the petitioner. Further, the question as to whether a notice is required to be issued before a dealership is placed under suspension, has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1297 of 2014 and it was held that such a notice is not required.

In the said view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.”

2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that, petitioner/appellant is a licensee of ration shop ARD No.26 in Kattakkad Taluk, which is within the limits of The Taluk Supply Officer, Kattakkara, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.2. Prior to that, her husband has been conducting ration depot ARD 311 in Poovachal Panchayat, Nedumangad. The appellant was appointed as a licensee of the shop, in the status as legal representative of her husband, vide Exhibit-P2. Appellant has stated that she has been conducting the ration depot for past one year, without any complaints. Subsequently, the rival owners prevailed upon the Taluk Supply Officer, Kattakkada, respondent No.2, to issue letter dated 05.10.2017 (Exhibit-P2) directing to shift the shop of the appellant to some other place. Since Exhibit-P2 was not acted upon by the appellant and since salesman, as required was also not appointed, invoking the powers under Section 45(8) of the Kerala Rationing Order, the 2nd respondent issued Exhibit-P3 memo dated 25.11.2017 to the appellant alleging that, despite orders to shift the shoproom to some other premises, she has not taken any action sofar.

3. Petitioner/appellant challenged the abovesaid notices before the writ court in W.P.(C) No.38944 of 2017. After hearing the rival contentions, writ court disposed of the said writ petition by judgment dated 7.3.2019 directing the 2nd respondent to finalise the proceedings pertaining to the notice dated 05.10.2017 and the memo dated 25.11.2017 taking into account the objection submitted by the writ petitioner, at the earliest and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Writ court further ordered that the interim order dated will continue to be in force till then. According to the writ petitioner/appellant, in order to get over the judgment dated 7.3.2019 in W.P.(C) No.38944 of 2017, a surprise inspection was conducted on 22.11.2019, in which, Exhibit-P8 stock report was issued. Subsequently, Exhibit-P9 communication dated 2.12.2019 was issued by the District Supply Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, suspending the licence of the writ petitioner on the basis of certain artificial allegations concocted by the inspecting team. Being aggrieved, writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

(a) “Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit-P9 communication dated 2.12.2019 issued by the District Supply Officer, Thiruvananthapuram.

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directing commanding respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere with the functioning of ARD No.56 allotted to the petitioner as has been proposed in Ext.P9.”

4. The Taluk Supply Officer, Kattakada, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.2, has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C)