IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No. 34652 OF 2014(GM-EC) BETWEEN:
R. Thippeswamy S/o Rajappa Aged about 26 years R/o Muddapura Hosatte Village Chitradurga Taluk & District-577503. … Petitioner (By Sri. J.D.Kashinath, Advocate) AND:
1. The Commissioner and the Appellate Authority Dept. of Food and Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Cunningham Road, Bangalore.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Chitradurga District Chitradurga Town-577503.
3. The Tahsildhar Chitradurga Taluk Chitradurga Town-577503.
4. Smt. K.Rathnamma W/o Sri. S.P.Oblesh R/o Muddapura Village & post Chitradurga Taluk & District-577503. ... Respondents (By Smt. Niloufer Akbar, AGA. For R1 to R3, Sri. H.Mohan Kumar, Advocate for R4) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for entire records in the R1, quash the impugned order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the R1 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition as illegal.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER This petition is directed against the order dated 09.05.2014 vide Annexure-A passed by the first respondent whereby he has remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.10.2008 the second respondent has issued the notification calling the applications from eligible individuals for allotment of Fair Price Depot, (‘FDP’ for short). Pursuant to that notification, the petitioner and other persons have applied for allotment of FDP. After considering all the applications, the respondent No.2 by order dated 26.06.2009 has allotted the FDP in favour of one Revanasiddappa. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.4 herein has filed an appeal before the Commissioner under Clause 17(1) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Order, 1992 (for short, ‘PDS Control Order’). The Commissioner, by order dated 09.05.2014 (Annexure-A) has allowed the appeal, cancelled the allotment of FDP made in favour of the petitioner and directed to reconsider the same in terms of Clause 6(3) of the PDS Control Order. Being aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that now the only ground on which the appeal filed is that the petitioner is PWD contractor and he is holding a licence. In fact no such document has been produced either before the original authority or the appellate authority.
The licence which is issued to the petitioner was not renewed from 2015. Without considering all these aspects the Commissioner has passed an order remanding the matter for reconsideration of the applications of all the applicants who were not parties before the Commissioner and who have not challenged their rejection.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that the order is only a remand order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a PWD contractor. Whether it is renewed as on the date of considering the application or not has to be decided by the original authorities. Therefore, the remand order passed by the Commissioner is in accordance with law.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has defended the order passed by the Commissioner.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. On 24.10.2018 second respondent has issued the notification calling upon the application for allotment of FPD in Muddapura Village. After second round of litigation, finally FPD was allotted in favour of the petitioner. In respect of the other applicants are concerned, they were rejected. Only respondent No.4 herein has challenged the authorization issued in favour of the petitioner. The Commissioner has rightly remanded the matter for reconsideration in respect of considering the issue in regard to the petitioner holding the licence for contract. But while remanding the matter the Commissioner has directed to consider all the applications which are already rejected. Since the applicants whose applications were rejected have not challenged the same, they have attained the finality. Under these circumstances the remand order is confined only to reconsider the applications of the petitioner and the fourth respondent in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The parties are at liberty to file additional documents, if any in support of their case.
In the above terms the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-