IMPORTANT POINT
The petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the suspension of licenses of retail distributors, and the principles of natural justice were upheld in the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P12 order issued by the District Supply Officer. The issue involved in this case pertains to the seizure of ration articles from a grocery shop and registration of a police case as Crime No.774 of 2012 underSection 3(2)(c) and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause 5(a) of the Kerala Rationing Order , 1996. Thereby it was found that nine authorised retail distributors in Thalappally Taluk had diverted their stock of ration sugar for sale in open market and those licensees were arrayed as accused in Crime No.774 of 2012 of Erumapetty Police Station.

2. The petitioner approached this Court by preferring this writ petition stating that he is a beneficiary of the Public Distribution System and he along with other people in the locality had submitted various complaints to the authorities concerned about the diversion of ration articles for sale in the black market. In pursuance of such complaints, a raid has been conducted by the police and seizure has been effected. It is also complained that on knowing the seizure from the open market, the licensed authorised retail shops were closed and those licensees absconded. It is also stated that the then Taluk Supply Officer and the Rationing Inspector were also arrayed as accused in Crime No.774 of 2012. Subsequently, those authorised retail distributors involved in the alleged misappropriation of ration articles were suspended pending enquiry.

3. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached the appropriate authority, requesting not to renew the licence of the licensees involved in these offences. On the basis of such complaint, the 1^st respondent had issued a communication dated 27.05.2014 and taking his complaint into consideration, he was informed that final orders against ARDs concerned will be issued only after finalisation of the police case.

4. Thereafter the persons involved in the offence approached this Court by preferring WP(C) No.10060 of 2016 for revocation of the suspension of the licence. By judgment dated 16.03.2016, the writ petition was disposed of directing the District Supply Officer to take decision on the application preferred by the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the District Supply Officer as per Ext.P7 whereby he appealed to the authority that there is no situation warranting revocation of the suspension of ARDs. Already there was a direction to conduct a hearing as per judgment dated 16.03.2016 in WP(C) No.10060 of 2016 preferred by the respondents. In such circumstances, the petitioner sought for an opportunity to be heard, being a Consumer of ration articles and he also preferred WP(C) No. 15392 of 2016.

5. By interim order dated 22.04.2016, this Court directed the 3^rd respondent, i.e., the District Supply Officer to consider and pass orders on the representation preferred by the petitioner, which is marked in this writ petition as Ext.P7 while hearing the matter pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment. Accordingly Ext.P9 notice was issued to the petitioner. He had submitted his version as per Ext.P10 dated 07.07.2016. In compliance with the directions in Exts.P5 and P8, the District Supply Officer, the 1^st respondent herein, heard the parties on 11.07.2016.

6. Upon hearing, the counsel for the petitioner put forward that the charge memo issued by the District Supply Officer is having some defects. Then sought for a correction with respect to six issues raised before the District Supply Officer. He also appealed to the authority that there is no circumstance that warrants revocation of suspension and sought the rejection of the applications submitted by the licensees on 22.02.2016.

7. During the hearing, it was also raised before the authority that the denial of an opportunity to be heard together with the licensees will deny the right of the petitioner for a fair trial. It is also cont