Court dismisses Writ Appeal, affirming the necessity of legal heirship certificates in ration depot license applications.

JUDGMENT :

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 19.02.2021 in R.P.No.56 of 2021 from the judgment dated 17.10.2017 in W.P.(C) No.36194 of 2010 of the learned Single Judge. Appellant was the petitioner in the Review Petition. Appellant was not a party in the W.P.(C) though his father had been arrayed as the 6^th respondent in the W.P. (C).

2. The Writ Petition was filed by the 1^st respondent seeking to quash Ext.P11 order of the 2^nd respondent and for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 6 to grant the licence of retail ration depot having permanent licence ARD No.123 in the name of the 1^st respondent.

3. The learned Single Judge had vide judgment dated 17.10.2017 disposed of the Writ Petition setting aside Ext.P11 order as well as the consequential order passed by the District Collector dated 12.01.2011. The learned Single Judge also directed the District Supply Officer to issue a notice to the 1^st respondent to produce the legal heirship certificate and the authorisation by all other legal heirs and to carry out an enquiry as envisaged in Clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 and to consider the grant of licence for running the relevant ration shop namely ARD No.123 in Tirurangadi Taluk. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, a Review Petition was filed by the appellant, who is the son of the 6^th respondent, in the above Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the Review Petition inter alia pointing out that there was inordinate delay in filing the same and that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Aggrieved by the judgments of the learned Single Judge both in the W.P. (C) as well as in the Review Petition, this Writ Appeal has been filed.

4. The additional 2^nd appellant was impleaded per order dated 06.10.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 since the appellant Sri.T.P.Santhosh Kumar passed away on 22.12.2021 during the pendency of the appeal.

5. Heard Sri.K.K.Mohamed Ravuf, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair, Advocate, for the 1^st respondent and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Senior Government Pleader for the official respondents.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Single Judge had erred in rendering the impugned judgment in the W.P.(C) as well as in the R.P. It is contended that since the 1^st respondent, who was the petitioner in the W.P.(C), had not appeared and argued the matter when posted for hearing, the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the W.P. (C). It is also contended that the learned Single Judge erred to take note of the fact that Krishnankutty, who had been running the shop had passed away in 2002 and nobody had made any claim till 2006. It is only when pursuant to Ext.P2 notification, the father of the Review Petitioner/appellant was found eligible for grant of licence, a claim was for the 1^st time made in the name of Vijayan, who is the brother of deceased Krishnankutty. It is further contended that in the enquiry pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, it had been found that Vijayan was acting as a benami of Narayanankutty, who was conducting the shop, and this finding was not challenged in revision or in the W.P. (C). The said factual finding had become final and the learned Single Judge had erred in overlooking the said fact. It had been specifically found that the mother of Vijayan had not filed any application nominating Vijayan and hence there was no scope or possibility of considering the same while selecting respondent No.6 in the W.P., who is the father of the appellant. It had also been revealed that Vijayan had stud