JUDGMENT

The petitioner has challenged the license issued by the District Supply Officer to the 4th respondent to function as the Authorised Ration Dealer (ARD) of Ration shop ARD No.158 of the Muthalamada Grama Panchayat. Applications were called for the appointment of dealer as can be seen from Exhibit P1 news report dated 19.6.2016. Exhibit P2 is a communication dated 20.2.2017 from the Taluk Supply Officer to the District Supply Officer, Palakkad, wherein it is stated that out of the 5 applications received, the applications submitted by the petitioner and the 4th respondent can be considered and that the other applicants are not eligible. Thereafter, as per Exhibit P3 proceedings dated 15.3.2017, the 3rd respondent considered the applications and ordered appointing the 4th respondent as the dealer. Even though the petitioner and the 4th respondent were found eligible, the 3rd respondent granted preference to the 4th respondent for the reason that she was unemployed and the younger person among the two.

2. The petitioner challenged Exhibit P3 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, by Exhibit P4 proceedings dated 24.11.2017, rejected the appeal. The main contention raised by the petitioner was that the 4th respondent was not a person residing in the concerned ward or within the service area of ARD No.158. It was also contended that the 4th respondent had not submitted documents to prove the residence along with the application and that the same were subsequently created for the purpose of supporting the application. The 2nd respondent considered the contentions and found that the 4th respondent was residing in Ward No.10 and that no interference is required with the decision of the 3rd respondent.

3. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by Ext.P5 order dated 23.11.2018 confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent, but also observed that, if for any reason, it is found that the appointment of the 4th respondent was wrongly made, it is liable to be cancelled. The writ petition has been filed praying to quash Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 and for a direction to the 3rd respondent to cancel the license issued to the 4th respondent and re-allot the license to the petitioner.

4. Heard Sri Peeyus A. Kottam on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Vinod Madhavan on behalf the 4th respondent and Sri Jacob Simon, Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.

5. Exhibit P6 is a letter dated 24.3.2017 issued from the Taluk Supply Office to the District Supply Officer, wherein it is stated that the 4th respondent and her family is presently residing in house No.10/438 with one Chellammal. Along with the letter, statements taken from some of the neighbours are also enclosed. The statements have also been produced in the Writ petition. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the above statements are not sufficient to show that the 4th respondent was residing in Ward No.10 at the time of submitting the application. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, wherein it is stated that the orders were issued after considering all the relevant aspects and that the statutory appeal and revision petitioner were also ordered after hearing the petitioner and after considering the contentions. It is also stated that the fact regarding the residence of the 4th respondent was confirmed from enquiries conducted among residents of Ward No.10, other related documents and the report of the Taluk Supply Officer.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent.

Along with the counter affidavit Exhibit R4(a) Residence Certificate dated 15.2.2017 issued by the Muthalamada Panchayat has been produced to show the residence of the 4th respondent in Ward No.10. On directions issued by the Court, the Government Pleader has produced the notification inviting application for appointment as authorised ration dealer and documents showing the residential address of the 4th respond