IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.51139/2019(GM-RES) SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS W/O LATE DEVE GOWDA R/O MALALIKOPPA VILLAGE MATTHRU POST SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577211.
(BY MS. ANUJA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI H. C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES VIKAS SOUHDA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.
2 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA-577211.
3 . THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INFORMAL RATIONING AREA SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA-577211.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYKUMR A PATIL, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 4.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner filed the memo dated 25.11.2019 stating that prayer (ii) may be dismissed as not pressed for the time being with liberty to challenge, if need arises in future. The submission is placed on record. Prayer (ii) in the above writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the endorsement dated 04.10.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B and for a direction to the respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner dated 25.10.2019(19.10.2019) produced at Annexures-A1 in terms of the order dated 08.02.2019 passed this Court in W.P.No.17131/2018 vide Annexure-C, forthwith.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband, late Deve Gowda was granted authorization in the year 1992-93 under the provisions of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992, by the competent authority for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders of Malalikoppa village, Shivamogaa Taluk and District. The petitioner’s husband, while carrying on the business, died on 15.09.2019 leaving behind the petitioner and the family members. Therefore, the petitioner made representation dated 25.10.2019 (19.10.2019) to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking transfer of authorization in her favour on compassionate grounds, which came to be rejected by the respondent No.2 by the Order dated 04.10.2019, mainly on the ground that, under the PDS Control Order the age of the licence holder as on the date of his death must be below 65 years, whereas in the present case, the deceased licence holder was aged 69 years. So also, the applicant must be aged between 18 to 30 years, whereas, the petitioner is aged 66 years. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for transfer of authorization. Hence the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Ms.Anuja, learned counsel for Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, contended that the impugned endorsement dated 04.10.2019 issued by the second respondent as per Annexure-B is contrary to the amended provisions of clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order. The amendment has prospective effect and it cannot be made applicable retrospectively, as the petitioner’s husband had obtained the authorization in the year 1992 itself. The respondent No.2 erred in not noticing that the petitioner’s husband was issued with authorization in the year 1992. She contended that, in identical circumstances, this Court, in the case of Smt. Pushpa vs. The Prl. Secretary to Government and others made in W.P.No.17131/2018 dated 08.02.2019, has quashed the similar endorsement and directed the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner therein for transfer of the authorization on compassionate grounds as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks. The said order has reached finality. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Vijaykumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate, sought to justify the impugned action of the respondents and contended that, in terms of the amended provisions of clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, authorization cannot be transferred in the name of the petitioner on compassionate grounds, since the petitioner’s husband died when he was aged 69 years. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the husband of the petitioner late Deve Gowda was granted authorization to run the fair price depot in the year 1992-93. The same was renewed from time to time, till his death in the year 2019. After his death, his wife, the petitioner, made a representation seeking transfer of the authorization which came to be rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner is aged 66 years and her husband was aged more then 69 years as on the date of his death, whereas, for transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds, the applicant’s age must be between 18 to 30 years and age of the original licence holder must be below 65 years.
8. Though the learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned endorsement, the fact remains that, in identical circumstances, this Court, in the case of Smt.Pushpa vs. The Prl. Secretary to Government and others made in W.P.No. 17131/2018 dated 08.02.2019, quashed the similar endorsement and directed the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner therein to transfer the authorization on compassionate grounds. The said order has reached finality. In order to maintain parity and equity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is also entitled to similar relief.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned endorsement dated 04.10.2019 vide Annexure-B is hereby quashed. The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for transfer of the authorization on compassionate ground as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm