Sajeena v. Thaluk Supply Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/4TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 3416 of 2015 (B) --------------------------- PETITIONER :

------------------- SAJEENA, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.LATHEEF, KURUBOLIL HOUSE, NEELIKULAM K.S.PURAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN SMT.VINEETHA V.KUMAR RESPONDENTS :

----------------------

1. THALUK SUPPLY OFFICER KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.

2. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOLLAM - 691 001.

3. LATHEEF, S/O.ABOOBAKER KUNJU, NOW RESIDING AT SALEENA MANZIL NEELIKULAM, K.S.PURAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 001.

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C. VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

WP(C).No. 3416 of 2015 (B) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD BEARING NO.1210114020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 16/6/2014 IN IA 32/2014 IN OP 20/2014 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.

P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.867/2014 IN O.P.409/2014 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.

P4:

TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22/1/2015 IN CMP.10132/2014 IN CMP.10131/2014 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

P5:

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/1/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

--------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

======================== W.P.(C). No. 3416 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

"i. To call for the records leading to Ext.P5 and to issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get a ration card showing her as the head of the family, based on Ext.P1.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to issue a ration card to the petitioner, showing her as the head of the family, based on Ext.P1.

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent to consider the grievance raised in Ext.P5 and to take necessary and appropriate action to redress the same."

2. A detailed statement has been filed by the 1st respondent. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of which read as follows: "2. The apprehension raised by the petitioner is that due to family issues petitioner's name may be deleted from the ration card during renewal. Petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before this respondent and considering the same an enquiry was conducted through the rationing Inspector, Kulasekharapuram. It is submitted that the petitioner's name is included in Ration

W.P.C. No.3416 of 2015 -2Card No. 1210114020 of Ration Depo. No.168. Earlier the Renewal Form (Pre-populated Form) has been issued to Lathif, husband of the petitioner. It is informed by the licensee that the same was issued to her husband without knowing about the dispute in the family. It is also informed on enquiry that petitioner is the only woman member of the family and so directions were issued to take the photograph of the petitioner and now on 07.02.2015 her photograph has already been taken.

3. It is also submitted that no objection has been received from any corners to delete the petitioner or her children from the ration card. If any application is received for deletion such application can only be considered in accordance with the procedure adopted for it. Presently as per procedure, especially for the issuance of new ration card, the same can be issued only in the name of the petitioner."

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

4. In view of the specific statement filed from the part of the 1st respondent, this Court finds that the grievance projected by the petitioner stands redressed and as such, no further orders are called for.

The writ petition stands closed accordingly.

Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

kp/-