The definition of 'normally resident in the locality' considers community service areas over strict ward residency, allowing broader eligibility for ARD appointments.

JUDGMENT :

Viju Abraham, J.

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 order and seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to grant licence to the petitioner to conduct ARD No.56 of Pinangode on a permanent basis.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner is a resident of Pinangode in Vythiri Taluk of Wayanad district. The Government has issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for appointment of a distributor of Shop No.56 of Pinangode on a permanent basis, a vacancy which has been reserved for women. There were 10 applicants, including the petitioner. After a detailed assessment of the eligibility of the applicants, the petitioner was granted Ext.P2 licence by the District Supply Officer, Wayanad. Against this, the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the District Collector, Wayanad, on the ground that the petitioner is ineligible to apply as she was working in a computer firm at the time of submitting the application. The District Collector allowed the appeal as per Ext.P3 order, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and directing the appointment of the 4^th respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Civil Supplies Commissioner, which was also rejected as per Ext.P4, against which an appeal was preferred before the Government, which also ended up in dismissal as per Ext.P5 order. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the authorities relying on the 3^rd proviso to Clause 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 which provides that a person who is a full-time employee in any establishment or who is not normally resident in the locality, shall not be eligible to hold an authorization to run a retail ration depot. The said orders of rejection were challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5055 of 2019. The challenge raised by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Single Judge, against which an appeal was preferred as W.A.No.1717 of 2019. The Division Bench as per Ext.P7 judgment repelled the rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is running a computer centre and as she being a full time employee in an establishment is ineligible to apply, by holding that the disqualification for a full time employee in an establishment as defined under the Kerala Rationing Order 1966, to be appointed as an ARD, can only be that in an establishment consuming ration articles, since the intention is to avoid any misappropriation or diversion of rationed articles and that the disqualification relates only to a full time employment in an establishment as defined under the Kerala Rationing Order 1966, and not such employment in an unrelated establishment or institution. On finding so, the Division Bench of this Court remitted the matter back to the District Collector to consider the appeal afresh on the other disputes between the parties. The District Collector considered the appeal and allowed the same as per Ext.P13 order directing appointment of the petitioner as a new licensee in respect of ARD No.56 of Vythiri Taluk in Wayanad District. Based on the same, the petitioner was appointed as the Authorised Ration Distributor, and she continues so, even now. Aggrieved by Ext.P13 order, the 4^th respondent has filed Ext.P8 appeal. The said appeal was allowed by the Commissioner for Civil Supplies, cancelling the very notification itself, i.e., Ext.P1 and directing the invitation of applications by a fresh notification. The reason stated in cancelling the original notification itself was that Ext.P1 notification was in respect of an ARD in ward No.III. of Pozhuthana Panchayat in Vythiri Taluk, and the petitioner or the 4^th respondent are not permanent residents in ward No.III and going by the 3^rd proviso to Clause 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order ,1966, both the petitioner and the 4^th respondent are ineligible for being appointed as a licensee of ARD No.56. It is aggrieved by the same,