JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of September 2022 Shaji P. Chaly, J.

Challenging the correctness of the judgment dated 30.8.2018 in W.P.(C)No.3737 of 2018, this writ appeal is filed. The issue involved in this writ appeal is regarding the cancellation of the dealership granted in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner, in terms of clause 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order by the first respondent/State of Kerala. Application for appointment of retail ration shop dealer was invited for Ward No.VIII of Ramankary Panchayat as per Ext.P1 notification dated 26.4.2013. Admittedly, appellant/writ petitioner is a resident of Ward No.X and therefore, although licence was initially granted to her, the same came to be challenged by the rival claimant Smt.Anandavally/respondent No.5.

2. The authorities, after due consideration, noted that fifth respondent is a resident of Ward No.VIII, and therefore granting license to a person, who is not a resident of the advertised ward, was found to be unmerited, and accordingly, the same was interfered with by the authority, and granted in favour of respondent No.5. The appellate authority affirmed the cancellation order, and eventually, when the aggrieved licensee challenged the decision through W.P. (C)No.3737/18, the learned Single Judge, after referring to the ratio in Selvaraj.C v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 158 (FB)] and Jose v. Nesamony [1994 (1) KLT 369] opined that since the appointed ration shop dealer should normally be a resident of the locality, under sub clause 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, the order in favour of a person, who is a resident of another locality, would not be justified. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be dismissed under the impugned judgment dated 30.8.2018. Operative portion of the judgment reads thus:

“6. I have considered the contentions advanced at considerable length. Exhibit P1 notification specifically calls for application from eligible persons for licensing of an ARD in Ward No.VIII of Ramankary Panchayat of Kuttanad Taluk at Valappura. Though it is contended that the petitioner is a resident of the Panchayat and that the beneficiaries of the ARD are local residents who belong to other Wards as also to Muttar Panchayat and that the petitioner's place of residence is hardly 300 metres away from the place where the ARD is presently located, it is not in dispute before me that the ARD was sought to be located at Ward No.VIII of Ramankary Panchayat. The rationed area in terms of Clause 2(16) of the Kerala Rationing Order is that the area in respect of which an ARD is sanctioned. Clause 45 provides for appointment of an ARD in respect of any area. The proviso thereto specifically states that a person who is not normally a resident in the locality shall not be eligible to hold an authorisation to run the ration depot under this order. The Full Bench of this Court in Jose's case (supra) lays down the correct law by interpreting the expression “normal resident in the locality” in sub-clause (1) of Clause 45 of the Order as follows:

“(3) 'authorised retail distributor' means a retail dealer who has been appointed or deemed to be appointed as such under the provisions of sub-clause (1) of clause 45 and shall include a person in charge of a shop or godown appertaining to a rationed article and under the control of the State or Central Government.”

'Rationed area' has been defined in sub-clause (16) of clause 2 to mean that any area in which the Order of 1966 has been brought into force. Clause 45 deals with appointment of Authorised Retail Distributor. The same, insofar as it is relevant for the purpose of deciding the question referred by the Division Bench, reads as follows:

“45(1). For the purpose of distributing rationed articles, the District Supply Officer may, by order, appoint in respect of any area any person as authorised retail distributor in respect of any rationed article:

Provided xxx x xxx x xxx Provided xxxx xxxx xxxx Provided also that a person