BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR FOOD AND

CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Revision Petition No: /2016

(Filed under Cl 71 of KRO 1966. Against the order of the

Commissioner of Civil Supplies issued in proceedings No. (CS) A5 -
11419/12 dated 11.7.2016 and orders of the District Collector
issued in proceedings No. F5-3099/08 dated 13.3.2012 )

Revision Petitioner:-
C.P.Joy, Ex ARD 150,
Thrissur Taluk, Cheriyankandath House,
Civil Lane, Quarters Road, Ayyanthol,
Thrissur-680 003.

Respondents

1. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies,Thiruvananthapuram

2. The District Collector, Thrissur
3. The District Supply Officer, Thrissur
4. The Taluk Supply Officer, Thrissur

MEMORANDUM of Revision Filed by the above said Revision

Petitioner C.P.Joy, Ex ARD 150 of Thrissur against proceedings
No. (CS) A5 -11419/12 dated 11.7.2016 of the Commissioner of
Civil Supplies Thiruvananthapuram received on 6/8/2016 and
proceedings No. F5-3099/08 dated 13.3.2012 the District Collector,
Thrissur.

Address for service of the Revision Petitioner is that of his

counsel S. Sivarajan, Advocate, Deepasree, Vanchiyoor,
Thiruvananthapuram.
 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This Petitioner was the licensee of ARD 150 of Thrissur Taluk.

While he was running ARD No. 150 another ARD No. 25 was
suspended and attached to ARD 150 run by this Petitioner and he
was allowed to run the attached ARD 25 in the building in which it
was running prior to the suspension. On 11.7.2008 the Taluk
Supply Officer, Thrissur got information that an Autorickshaw
loaded with 5 bags of Ration Rice from the vicinity of ARD 25/150
had been interrupted by the local people in the public road . On
getting the information the Taluk Supply Officer and party rushed
to the spot and made enquiry . It is stated that the driver of the
Autorikshaw Sri. Subramanian has given a statement to the effect
that in the morning as directed by Sri. C.P.Joy , the licensee of ARD
25/150 , he has loaded 5 bags of Raw Rice from the adjacent room
of the ARD 25/150 for unloading in the house of the licensee.
Accordingly the Taluk Supply Officer has seized 5 bags of raw Rice
as per Easy Act 1955. On the basis of the statement of the driver of
the Autorikshaw the Taluk Supply Officer has inspected the room
from where the alleged Raw Rice was stated to have been loaded in
the Autorikshaw and seized 975 Kg raw rice, 48 Kg Wheat, 96 Kg
C.M.R and 144 Kg of Boiled rice kept in the room unauthorisedly
without any documents and seized the Autorikshaw No. KL 08-L
7893 vide mahazar dated 11.7.2008. He has entrusted the total
stock including the 5 bags of raw rice seized from the road to
ARD 20 and the said Autorikshaw was also been seized as per Easy
Act and entrusted to the West Police Station for safe custody. Copy
of the mahazar is produced herewith as Annexure 1.

After completing action under Easy Act the T.S.O initiated

action to inspect ARD 25/150 . It is alleged that though the TSO
asked Sri. C.P.Joy , the licensee, who was stated to be sitting in the
opposite shop, to open the ration Shop 25/150 at 1.45 pm for
 3

inspection, he left the place without being opened the shop. So the
TSO has break open the ration shop in the presence of the Village
Officer, Police Officers of West police Station and the owner of the
building and other witnesses and inspected the ration shop. It is
stated that on inspection he found that there was no records
relating to the ration shop available in the room. A sum of
Rs.377/50 was kept in the drawer of the table kept in the shop and
there was a stock of 297 Kg CMR, 1680 Kg Boiled rice, 169 Kg
Wheat, 25 Kg Raw Rice, 300 Kg of Sugar, 350 liters of Kerosene
and 150 Kg of Atta in the ration shop. Accordingly the TSO
presumed that there was serious irregularities in the Ration Shop
No.25/150 and suspended ARD No. 25/150 and ARD 150 vide
proceedings No. CS 6-2067/08 of 11.7.2008.

Charge memo No.F7-3099/08 dated 10.12.2008 was issued

by the District Supply Officer. Copy of the charge memo is
produced herewith as Annexure 2. The following charges were
leveled against the licensee.

1. Though the licensee was available in the place he was

not ready to open the ration shop for inspection by the Taluk
Supply Officer.
2. At the time of inspection there was no records available
in the ration shop.
3. As per the statement of Sri.C. Subramonian, the driver
of Auto No. KL 8L-7893 SRI.C.P.Joy has loaded 5 bags of raw
rice from the adjacent room of the ration shop with direction
to unload in his house.
4. From the adjacent room of the ration shop a total
quantity of 975 Kg raw rice 48 Kg Wheat, 96 kg CMR, 144 Kg
Boiled Rice kept unauthorisedly had been seized by the taluk
Supply Officer. The building owner Sri.C.M.Babu, has given a
 4

statement that he has rented the above said room to Sri.

C.P.Joy.

For the above said charges Sri.C.P.Joy has given his

detailed explanation on 20.12.2008 denying all the charges one
by one. Copy of the explanation is produced herewith as
Annexure 3.

In the annexure 3 explanation it has been specifically

stated that this Petitioner has staged a Sathyagraha before the
Taluk Supply Office, Thrissur on 28.4.2008 in connection with
attachment of ARD 351/150 . So from 28.4.2008 onwards the
Taluk Supply Officer and staff were in inimical terms with this
Petitioner. In order to take revenge upon the Petitioner the TSO
has cooked up this case on 11.7.2008 against the Petitioner.

On 11.7.2008 this Petitioner has opened the ration shop

as usual and closed the shop at 12 noon and he went to his wife
house at Puranattukara to attend the functions in connection
with the demise of his father-in-law on 6.7.2008. Copy of obituary
is produced herewith as Annexure 4.

On the very same day after closing the ration shop at 12 noon
some local Politicians with connivance of the Taluk Supply Officer
brought 5 bags of raw rice and kept in the road side at a short
distance from ration shop No.25/150 and sent a false message or
bogus petition to the TSO that 5 bags of ration rice carrying in a
Autorikshaw has been interrupted by local people in the road
near ARD 25/150. On getting the information the TSO and party
rushed to the spot and seized the Raw rice kept in the road side
and after that a passenger Autorikshaw No. KL 8L7893 has been
arranged by the local Politicians and brought to the place where
raw rice was kept and obtained a statement by threatening ,
 5

coercion, and by inducement to the effect that he has brought the

raw rice in question from the adjacent room of the ration shop as
directed by C.P.Joy, the licensee, to unload in his house. But the
next day ie. on 12.7.2008 the driver of the Autorikshaw No KL 8L
7893 submitted a petition before the District Collector, Thrissur
describing the truth. . Copy of the Petition is produced herewith
as Annexure 5

After completing the proceedings under Easy Act the

TSO and party inspected the Ration Shop No. 25/150 in the
absence of this Petitioner by break open the shop at 1.45 pm. All
the records of the ration shop were kept in the drawer of the
table. Without verifying the relevant records kept in the table the
TSO and party has assessed the physical stock and found that
there was a stock of 297 Kg CMR, 1680 Kg Boiled rice , 169 Kg
Wheat, 25 Kg Raw rice, 300 Kg Sugar , 350 liters Kerosene and
150 Kg Atta and entrusted the stock to ARD 20 on proper receipt.
The ARD 20 has shifted the entire stock then and there. When
this Petitioner arrived the shop at 4 pm for opening the ration
shop he found with dismay that his ration shop was kept open by
dismantling the lock in his absence. Then he filed a petition
before the District Collector stating the facts. Copy of the Petition
is produced herewith Annexure 6. Thus he has denied charge
No.1

In respect of charge No.2 he has stated that all the

documents related to the ration shop were kept in the drawer of
the table. Without verifying the relevant records kept in the
drawer of the table, the TSO has removed the stock kept in the
depot. At the time of inspection all the records relating to the
ration shop were kept in the drawer of the table. In his Annexure
6 petition submitted before the District Collector he has stated the
 6

facts. As demanded by the TSO all the records were entrusted to

the TSO subsequently . So charge No.2 is unsustainable.

As against charge No. 3 this Petitioner has stated that

he did not know Sri. Subramonian, the driver of Auto No. KL 8L-
7893 which is a passenger Auto and as such goods cannot be
loaded in the passenger auto. He has not loaded 5 bags of raw
rice in an Autorikshaw from the adjacent room of the ration Shop
as alleged. A statement was obtained from the driver of the
passenger Auto by threatening , coercion and by inducement. The
truth has been explained by the auto driver in his Annexure 5
petition dated 12.7.2008 submitted before the Hon. District
Collector.

The 3rd charge is baseless and false which has been

included in the memo of charge as a result of a conspiracy of the
Taluk Supply Officer with the local Politicians .

Charge No.4 has been denied in toto. He has stated that

he has not taken any room other than the ration depot. The room
was actually taken on rent by the licensee of ARD 25 and not by
this Petitioner. If he has rented the adjacent room as alleged there
should have been a rent agreement between the building owner
Sr. C.M.Babu and C.P.Joy. But Sri.C.M.Babu has not produced
any rent agreement before the authority in respect of the alleged
adjacent room. Actually the alleged adjacent room from where the
essential commodities were seized is attached to the residential
building of the building owner Sri.C.M.Babu and as such no
building number has been assigned to that room . In the
annexure I mahazar the building number has not been
furnished . So the essential commodities seized from the alleged
adjacent room belongs to the owner of the building or somebody
known to him that was why the building owner has not appeared
 7

before the District Collector for hearing on 03.02.2012 and

10.02.2012. The building owner Sri. C.M.Babu and this Petitioner
were not in good terms. The building owner demanded for the
enhancement of monthly rent of the room taken for running of the
ARD . But the Petitioner has not conceded to his demand. It is
also stated that this Petitioner has not committed any
irregularities as alleged and his explanation may be accepted and
he may be exonerated from all the charged and the suspension
may be revoked and licence restores to him to run ARD 25/150
and ARD 150 of Thrissur Taluk.

In this case the charge memo was issued by the District

Supply officer as per Cl. 45 (8) KRO 1966. On getting the
explanation the DSO issued notice for hearing on 14.1.2009.
Copy of the notice is produced herewith as Annexure 7. This
petitioner appeared at the appointed time and heard but no order
was issued by the DSO. Again another notice was issued by the
DSO for hearing on 19.10.2016. Copy of the notice is produced
herewith as Annexure 8. This petitioner appeared and heard but
no order was passed by the District Supply Officer.

This District Supply Officer is the competent authority to

award any punishment including cancellation of authorization of
an ARD (capital punishment) under Cl 45 (8) of KRO 1966 for
which the charge memo was issued by the District Supply Officer.
In such case the District Collector is the appellate authority under
Cl. 45 (10)of KRO. In this case even though the memo of charge
was issued by the District Supply Officer and explanation
obtained and heard the case finally twice the DSO has not passed
any order instead the DSO has submitted the file to the District
Collector for taking decision along with essential commodities
seized as per Easy Act 1955. But action under Cl . 45 (8) of KRO
 8

1966 and action under 6 A of Easy Act 1955 are to be taken

separately and independently by the appropriate authorities. In
this connection it may kindly be seen that the District Collector is
the only authority to initiate action Under Section 6 A of the Easy
Act 1955 for which a notice under section 6B is mandatory.
Without giving Section 6B Notice and obtaining explanation from
the persons concerned the District Collector has sent notice for
hearing 11 AM on 27.7.2011. Copy of the notice is produced
herewith as Annexure 9. This Petitioner appeared and head the
case. The District Collector again sent another notice for hearing
at 12 noon on 4.1.2012. Copy of the notice is produced herewith
as Annexure 10 and this Petitioner appeared for hearing as and
when called for by the District Collector.

After hearing the District Collector has disposed off both

cases ie. the case initiated under Cl .45 (8) of KRO 1966 and case
initiated under Section 6 A of Easy Act 1955, together in one and
the same proceeding No. F5-3099/08 dated 13.3.2012. Copy is
produced herewith Annexure11. In the proceeding dt 13.3.2012
the District Collector has cancelled the authorization issued to
Sri. C.P.Joy, this Petitioner, to run ARD 150 of Thrissur Taluk
and entire Security Deposit forfeited to Government .It is also
ordered to confiscate the cost of essential commodities seized
from the adjacent room of the ration shop No. 25/150 and raw
rice seized from the road. Aggrieved by the above order of
cancellation of authorization of ARD150 and forfeited of security
deposit this Petitioner field appeal before the Commissioner of
Civil Supplies. Copy of the appeal is produced herewith Annexure
12 .

Without appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective

and without considering the arguments advanced and without
 9

assigning any reason the Hon’ble Commissioner of Civil Supplies

has upheld the orders of the District Collector Thrissur and
rejected the appeal filed by the revision Petitioner as per
proceeding No. (CS) A5 -11419/12 dated 11.07.2016. Aggrieved
by the above proceeding dtd 11.07.2016 this revision is filed on
the following .

Appeal memorandum furnished by the Taluk Supply officer is

produced herewith on Annexure 13.

GROUNDS

1. The impugned orders of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies is

against law, facts, equity and evidence on records and is
opposed to Kerala Rationing order 1966 and norms laid down
in this regard.
2. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies ought to have
appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective .
3. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that the District Supply Officer
is the competent authority to finalize action initiated under Cl
45 (8) of KRO 66
4. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that KRO 1966 and Easy Act
1955 are distinct and separate statutes promulgated by the
Government of Kerala and Government of India respectively
and scope and ambit of both statutes are different.
5. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that the District Supply Officer
who issued the charge memo and heard the case should
 10

finalise the proceedings and hence the District Supply Officer

should have issued final order under Cl 45 (8)of KRO 1966.
6. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that case initiated under Cl 45
(8) of KRO and case initiated under Section 6A of Easy Act
are distinct and separate and the authorities who are
empowered to initiate action are different and hence both
cases should not be intermingled at any rate.
7. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that the stock and accounts of
ARD 25/150 was correct and the Taluk Supply Officer could
not find out any irregularities in the stock and accounts of
the ARD on inspection and that was the reason why the
charge memo No. F7-3099/08 dated 10.12.2008 was silent
about the stock and accounts of the ARD.
8. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies ought to have found
that the District Collector is of the view that Sri. C.P.Joy,
this revision Petitioner is not having any connection with the
essential Commodities seized on 11.7.2008 and that was the
reason why Sri. C.P.Joy was not implicated in the Easy Act
case and section 6B notice has not been issued
9. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that without notice under 6B
confiscation under 6A of Easy Act 1955 cannot be finalized .
10. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that memo of charges issued
under Cl (45(8) of K.R.O 1966 is not enough to proceed under
Section 6A of easy Act 1955.
11. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that this petitioner has not
taken on rent the alleged adjacent room of the ration shop
 11

from where the essential commodities were seized by the

T.S.O on 11.7.2008.
12. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that no rent agreement has
been executed by this petitioner with owner of the building
Sri.C.M. babu and that may be the reason for the non
appeareance of the building owner before the District
Collector for hearing on 3.2.2012 and 10.02.2012.
13. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that Sri.C.P.Joy this Petitioner
has closed the ration shop at 12 noon on 11.7.2008 and left
for Puranattukara to take part in the function in connection
with demise of his father-in-law.
14. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that this Petitioner was in
Puranattukara when the incidents took place at Thrissur
town.
15. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that the TSO could not detect
any irregularities in the functioning of ARD 25/150 on
inspection by break open the shop . There was no variation in
the stock and accounts of the depot.
16. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies ought to have
considered the spirit of Ruling reported in 2004 (2) KLT
562 . Copy is produced herewith as Annexure 14.
17. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the District
Collector ought to have found that in the mahazar the
details regarding exact time of mahazar , building number of
the alleged adjacent room and exact place where 5 bags of
raw Rice was found are omitted by the Taluk Supply Officer in
the 1st mahazar purposely.
 12

18. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies ought to have

issued a speaking order.

From the facts stated above it can be seen that Sri. C.P.Joy ,
this petitioner is innocent and he has no connection with the
essential commodities seized on 11.07.2008 by the Taluk Supply
Officer.

For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of

hearing , it is humbly prayed that the Honourable Minister for food
and Civil Supplies may kindly set aside proceedings No. (CS)A5 -
11419/ 12 dated 7.11.2016 of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies
and Proceedings No. F5 -3099 /08 dated 13.3.2012 of the District
Collector, Thrissur and revision allowed and Petitioner may be
absolved of all the liabilities and licence restored to this petitioner
to run ARD 150 of Thrissur Taluk.

It is also prayed that all further proceedings in

pursuance of Proceedings No. (CS)A5 -11419/ 12 dated 7.11.2016
of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies may kindly be stayed till
disposal of this revision Petition.

Dated this the 12th day of August 2016

Advocate Revision Petitioner