IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.56159/2017 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN:
RAILWAY CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.MAHADEV, S/O LATE MANTELINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, 2ND CROSS, TELECOM COLONY, MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD, UDAYAGIRI POST, MYSORE-570 019. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGARAJA N. NAIDU) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DIST, MYSORE-570 007.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DIST-570 007.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DIST-570 007. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.2.2015 PASSED BY R-3 AT ANNEX-B AND DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REVISION PETITION AND ALSO PETITIONER TO ALLOW TO DISTRIBUTE THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITITES TO THE CARD HOLDERS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No.1 to 4 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19.02.2015 at Annexure-B to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the revision petition and allow the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities.
3. Through the order dated 19.02.2015, the authorization issued in favour of the petitioner has been suspended. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed a revision petition as at Annexure-F. Since, the revision petition has not been considered and disposed of, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.
4. Since, the contentions to assail the order impugned would be available for consideration in the revision petition, this Court, in this petition is not required to advert to the said contentions. However, what is necessary to be taken note is that, until the revision petition is considered and disposed of, the interest of the parties is required to be protected and it is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. In a normal circumstance, since the impugned order is dated 19.02.2015 and the revision petition is filed on 26.07.2017, this Court would not have considered the relief. However, in the instant case, it is noticed from Annexures- E and E1 to the petition that even as late as on 08.07.2017, the petitioner is lifting the essential commodities for the purpose of distribution to its cardholders which would indicate that the order dated 19.02.2015 had not been given effect to.
6. If that be the position, the same status is necessary to be continued till the revision petition is disposed of. In that light, it is ordered that the respondents shall not implement the order dated 19.02.2015 till the revision petition/appeal is considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority. Until such consideration is made, the petitioner shall be permitted to lift the essential commodities and distribute the same to its cardholders.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST