IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BETWEEN:
BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.52105/2019(GM-PDS) SMT. LATHA @ THEJASWINI WIFE OF LATE NAGARAJASWAMY U M AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT ULAVI SORABA TALUK SHIVMOGA DIST-577429 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI KALYAN KUMAR H. S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 2 . THE COMMISSIONER FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560052.
3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS SECTION SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT) 4 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS) SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT.
5 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR (FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS) SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HIGHT COURT GOVERNMNET PLEADER) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT/ORDER DATED 22.10.2019 PASSED BY THE R-5 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AS ILLEGAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the impugned endorsement/order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the 5th respondent vide Annexure-E and to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 5 to consider the representation given by the petitioner 19.01.2019 at Annexure-C and to issue authorization / licence in favour of the petitioner on compassionate grounds for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, petitioner’s husband is license holder of fair price depot since 1993 and the entire family was depending on the petitioner. Unfortunately, petitioner’s husband died on 31.12.2018. Subsequent to the death of her husband, petitioner gave representation to the respondents seeking transfer of authorization in her favour for distributing the food grains to the card holders. In pursuance of the said representation, the 5th respondent, proceeded to pass the impugned endorsement, rejecting the request of the petitioner, without application of mind, mainly on the ground that the petitioner has failed in SSLC. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court, for the relief sought for.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri H.S.Kalyan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned endorsement issued by the 5th respondent is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the material on record. The authorization was issued in favour of the petitioner’s husband in the year 1993. The 5th respondent proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement rejecting the representation of the petitioner for transfer of authorization mainly on the ground that, the petitioner has not passed SSLC and as per the amended provision of clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2016, the applicant must have passed SSLC. He further contended that the amendment provision has prospective effect and it cannot be made applicable retrospectively, as the petitioner’s husband had obtained the authorization in the year 1993 itself. Learned counsel 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, he sought to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri Sridhar N.Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader, though not disputed the fact that the petitioner’s husband was running the fair price depot, and after his death, petitioner made representation for transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds, sought to justify the impugned action of the respondents. He has not disputed the fact that in identical circumstances, this Court, in W.P.No.17131/2018, stated supra, quashed similar endorsement. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the said order reads as under:
“8. Admittedly, the application for transfer of endorsement in favour of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria with regard to the age. Paragraph-5 of the order dated 20.02.2017 in W.P.No.6993/2017 reads as under:
5. Both on the aspect relating to the applicant not requiring to pass the SSLC and the restriction of age not being applicable when the transfer of authorization is sought on compassionate ground has arisen before this Court in several writ petitions including W.P.No. 22448/2015 dated 21.09.2016 and W.P.No.
204335/2014 dated 17.11.2014 and it has been held that such condition cannot be imposed for transfer on compassionate ground”.
9. From close scrutiny of the aforesaid paragraph, it is evident that in W.P.No.22448/2015 which was decided by an order dated 21.09.2016, it has been held that the requirement with regard to having passed SSLC and restriction of age is not applicable when the transfer of authorization is sought on compassionate ground. The aforesaid finding has admittedly attained finality and is binding on the respondents as they have not challenged the same either by filing a review petition or by filing a writ appeal. Therefore this Court finds no reason to take a different view.
10. In the result, the impugned endorsement dated 23.03.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to take not of the application filed by the petitioner and to consider the same for transfer of the authorization on compassionate ground as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.”
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned endorsement dated 22.10.2019 vide Annexure-E is hereby quashed. The respondent No.5 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