Petitioner challenges Ext. P6 order of suspension issued by the District Supply Officer on 10.6.2014. According to the petitioner, the original of Ext. P6 has not been furnished to him so far. 2. The facts involved in the case would disclose that the petitioner is a licensee of AWD No. 4 wholesale depot for rationing articles. It is alleged that the Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva, had seized the vehicle KL-17-F- 6901 while transporting a load of raion articles, which was intended for supply to the godown of the petitioner licensee. It is also observed that there had been certain other irregularities noticed by the authorities while conducting the inspection on 9.6.2014 and pending enquiry, his licence has been suspended and there is a direction to attach the said depot to a neighbouring shop.
3. According to the petitioner, he had taken one lorry load of wheat from F.C.I. godown at Wellington Island on 9.6.2014 and the load was unloaded at his another godown at Azad Road. While the inspection was being conducted on 9.6.2014, the said lad reached the premises of the depot and therefore there is no variation as contended by the respondents. It is therefore contended W.P(C) No. 14837 of 2014 -: 2 :-
that the vehicle which was seized by the S.I. of Police is not the lorry of the petitioner, whereas a deliberate attempt had been made to involve him in the matter.
4. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent inter alia supporting Ext. P6. It is stated that Ext. P6 proceedings were issued pending detailed enquiry in the matter. Though the petitioner has contended that the lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-17F 6901 was unloaded in a different place, but the Aluva Police had seized the very same lorry with the load at Aluva. So, according to the authorities, there is prima facie material to indicate that the petitioner is involved in the manipulation of ration articles and as such the order of suspension is valid.
5. During the course of argument, the only request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is for an opportunity to file an appeal before the District Collector and/or a revision before the Government. The petitioner contends that the suspension order had been issued without notice to him, which is bad in law. He relies on a decision of this Court in Chacko K. v. Taluk Supply Office and others, 2010(1) KHC 416 to support his contention.
6. Having regard to the fact that suspension order had been issued without notice to the petitioner, W.P(C) No. 14837 of 2014 -: 3 :-
which is contemplated in terms of the judgment cited above, I am of view that the matter has to be adjudicated in the appeal or revision before the authorities.
7. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as under:
(a) The order of suspension at Ext. P6 shall be kept in abeyance until the date of service of authenticated copy to the petitioner and thereafter for a period 10 days.. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate appeal/revision before the competent authorities and the said authorities shall be entitled to pass appropriate interim orders in the matter.
(b) The process shall be completed by the appellate/revisional authority within two months from the date of receipt of the appeal/revision as case may be.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/