Administrative orders must comply with statutory requirements; failure to do so allows for civil court intervention.

1. The third defendant in the suit -- OS 63 of 1973 of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Pattambi has come up with this second appeal. The said defendant is a cooperative society -- Kutnaranellur Cooperative Marketing Society. The suit arose on the facts stated below:

2. One V. B. K. Menon, the plaintiff is the authorised wholesale distributor of rationed articles appointed under the Kerala Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 for the Trithala Firka. This appointment was as per GO. (Ms) 28/69/Food dt. 10-9-69. In partial modification of this order GO. Ms. 29/69/Food dt. 24-9-69 was issued which directed that the wholesaler will cater to all the retail shops in Trithala Firka, copy of which is Ext. A1. On 30-3-1973 the Collector of Palghat, the first defendant in the suit passed the impugned proceedings in the case, marked as Ext. B1, by which twenty retail depots were delinked from the plaintiff's wholesale depot and the present appellant (3rd defendant) was appointed as the Authorised Wholesale Distributor (A. W. D.) in respect of these twenty depots. The same was communicated to the plaintiff by the letter from the collectorate of date 31-3-1973, copy of which is marked as Ext. A3 in the suit. Contending the proceedings concerned was invalid and not binding on him, as it was passed without hearing him and also on account of the fact that it was passed by the collector while he had been appointed as the A. W. D. by the government, the plaintiff brought forward the suit which was for a declaration that the proceedings of the collector is not valid and binding on him and to restrain the defendants from implementing the same. The defendant in the suit besides the collector (1st defendant) and the appellant society (third defendant) is the Taluk Supply Officer, Ottappalam, who figures as the second defendant.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendants on various grounds but in the appeal we are concerned with two grounds of such resistance which can be summarised as: (1) the right sought to be agitated by the plaintiff are not civil rights as such. The rights and liabilities of dealers of rationed articles arise out of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 -- hereinafter referred to as the Rationing Order -- which was brought into force on 1-7-1966 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by the Government of Kerala. According to the appellant, the Rationing " Order is a self contained code and hence the rights or privileges claimed thereunder must be determined only in accordance with the provisions of the said order and therefore remedy for redressal of the grievances of the plaintiff, if any, is not to approach the civil court but to approach the forum provided for under the "Rationing Order". Under the Rationing Order the plaintiff has been conferred with certain privileges alone and not any right as under law, and
(2) The collector had ample jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

4. The Trial Court decreed the suit, upholding the plaintiff's contentions, in so far as it related to the declaration sought for, that is, for declaring the proceedings of the Collector dated 31-3-75 evidenced by Ext. B1, as not valid and binding on the plaintiff. As regards the sequential injunction prayed for, namely, for restraining the defendants from implementing the impugned proceedings, the court refused the same as it had already been implemented This judgment and decree was confirmed in appeal by the Sub Court, Ottappalam in A. S. 22/75, appeal filed by the 3rd defendant who has, therefore, subsequently come up herewith this second appeal. In this appeal, Mr. Radhakrishna Menon, learned counsel for the appellant, besides the two