Eligibility of applicants for retail distribution based on experience, even as temporary licensees, is valid despite age and residence challenges.

JUDGMENT :

SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 26.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 21865 of 2019. Appellant was respondent No.6 in the said W.P.(C) and respondent Nos.1 to 5 were the respondents therein. The 6^th respondent herein was the petitioner in the WP (C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by respondent No.6, challenging the selection of the appellant as the authorised retail distributor for Ration Depot No.221 of Vettiyara Ward No.7 of Navaikulam Panchayat. The following prayers were sought in the W.P.(C) :

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exts.P11(a), P31, P33 and P35 and quash them ;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 5 to appoint the petitioner as the Authorised retail Distributor of ARD No.221 in erstwhile ward No.7 of Navaikulam Panchayat, (now ward No.1 and 21) of Varkala Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District ;

iii) declare that the 6^th respondent is ineligible from being permanently appointed as the Licencee of ARD No.221 in erstwhile ward No.7 of Navaikulam Panchayat, (now ward No.1 and 21) of Varkala Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District ;

iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petition (Civil).”

3. The learned Single Judge allowed the W.P.(C) and quashed Exts.P11(a), P31, P33 and P35 and further, directed respondent No.4 to consider the claim of the petitioner in the W.P. (C), in the light of the principles laid down in the judgment, within a time period of 8 weeks. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the 6^th respondent in the W.P.(C).

4. No counter affidavit had been filed by the appellant in the W.P.(C) and pursuant to the interim order dated 22.05.2025 an affidavit dated 27.05.2025 with annexures was filed by the appellant. In response to the same, a counter affidavit dated 05.06.2025, along with annexures was filed by the 6^th respondent also.

5. Heard Sri.R.T.Pradeep, Advocate for the appellant and Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer, Advocate, for the 6^th respondent. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader, was heard on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been rendered on an incorrect appreciation of law and facts and is liable to be set aside. He submitted that the appellant had been found eligible by respondents 1 to 5, who are the duly competent authorities to issue the permanent licence and effect appointment as a ration dealer, and no fault had been found in the application preferred by the appellant. It is submitted that the 6^th respondent is currently ineligible as he is now 63 years old and as per the Kerala Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2021, an applicant should not be above the age of 62 years as on the first day of January in which year the application is made. Even a fresh application from the 6^th respondent cannot be entertained as he is beyond the prescribed age limit. It is admitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have noted that respondent No.6, who had filed the petition, had no locus standi as he had already been found to be an ineligible applicant by respondent Nos.1 to 5 and that the petition had been filed only to harass the appellant. It is admitted that, after the rejection of the application of the 6^th respondent, he h