IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.31248 OF 2016 (GM-EC) BETWEEN:
Smt.Puttagangamma, W/o Rajanna, Aged about 41 years, R/o Kudur (Opposite to KEB), Magadi Taluk, Ramanagaram District – 562 120. (By Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner (Food), Ramanagaram District, Ramanagaram – 562 159.
2. The Deputy Director (Food), Ramanagaram District, Ramanagaram – 562 159.
3. The Commissioner for Food & Civil Supplies, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560 052.
4. The Hon’ble Minister for Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Karnataka, … Petitioner Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.
(By Sri.V.Shivareddy, HCGP) … Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the R - 4 at Annexure – J and etc., This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by respondent No.4 as well as order dated 02.05.2016 passed by respondent No.1, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was granted authorization to run a Fair Price Shop in the year 1995-1996. The petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice and on the basis of the allegations contained therein, the license of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop was suspended. The petitioner on receipt of the Show Cause Notice filed a reply. However, the Deputy Commissioner without holding any enquiry as envisaged under Clause 12(1) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Control Order’ for short) has cancelled the authorization issued in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 07.01.2009.
4. The petitioner preferred an appeal.
However, the appeal was dismissed in limine. The petitioner thereafter, challenged the aforesaid order in the revision before respondent No.2. However, revisionsal authority, by order dated 22.01.2016, has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention that enquiry as envisaged under Clause 12(1) of the Control Order was not done before the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the matter deserves to be remanded to respondent No.1 for conducting an enquiry as provided under Clause 12(1) of Control Order.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate was unable to point out from the records whether any enquiry was conducted before passing of the impugned order dated 07.01.2009.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, enquiry as envisaged under Clause 12(1) of the Control Order has not been conducted prior to passing of the order dated 07.01.2009. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has neither been appreciated by the appellate authority nor revisional authority while passing the impugned orders. The impugned orders therefore, deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 07.01.2009, 20.03.2009 and 22.01.2016 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry as envisaged under Clause 12(1) of the Control Order, and to decide the issue with regard to consideration of the license of the petitioner afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
8. Interim order, if any, shall continue till the proceedings are concluded by the Deputy Commissioner.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-