IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50898/2019(GM-EC) SRI G.V.MANJUNATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE G.B.VENKATRAMA REDDY, R/O GAUNICHIRUVAPALLI VILLAGE, PEDDUR POST, MURGUMALLA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLABUR DISTRICT-563125.
(BY SRI VARUN GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR.-563125.
3 . DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-563125.
4 . TAHSILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-563125.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
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 19.11.2019 stating that he would not press the prayer (ii) and (iii), for the time being. The Memo is placed on record. Prayer (ii) and (iii) are dismissed as not pressed, for the time being.
2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the endorsement dated 12.09.2019 issued by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A and to direct the respondent No.3 to consider the application for transfer of authorization of the petitioner dated 26.08.2019 in terms of the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.17131/2018, vide Annexure-E, forthwith.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the competent authority issued authorization in favour of the father of the petitioner i.e., G.B.Venkatrama Reddy, for distribution of essential commodities like food grains and kerosene in the year 1987-88, under the provisions of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1986 (‘Control Order’ for short). On the basis of the authorization issued, petitioner’s father used to distribute the essential commodities to the eligible card holders of Gownicheruvapalli village, Peddur Post, Murgumalla Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. The licence was renewed from time to time. When things stood thus, the petitioner’s father died on 09.08.2019. Therefore, petitioner filed application 26.08.2019 seeking transfer of authorization to run the fair price depot on compassionate ground. The respondent No.3 rejected the application mainly on the ground that, under clause-13 of the PDS Control Order-2016, for transfer of authorization under compassionate ground, the licence holder must have died within 65 years of age. But in the instant case, the licence holder has died at the age of 78 years. So also, the petitioner is aged 42 years, whereas under the Control Order, the applicant must be aged between 18 to 30 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. Sri Varun Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition, contended that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A, is erroneous and contrary to law and cannot be sustained. He further contended that, admittedly, licence has been issued in favour of the father of the petitioner in the year 1987-88. The amended provisions of clause 13 of the PDS Control Order is prospective and should not be taken retrospectively. The authority failed to notice that the petitioner is entitled to transfer of authorization on compassionate ground. He further 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 application of the petitioner therein to transfer 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.
6. Per contra, Sri Sridhar N. Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader, sought to justify the impugned action of the respondents and contended that the petitioner’s father died at the age of 78 years. Therefore, in view of the amended provisions of clause 13 of the PDS Control Order, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was granted authorization/licence by the competent authority to run the fair price depot in the year 1987-88 for distribution of essential commodities to the eligible card holders of Gownicheruvapalli village, Peddur Post, Murgumalla Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. The said authorization was renewed from time to time till his death on 09.08.2019. The petitioner filed an application seeking transfer of the authorization on 26.08.2019. The respondent No.3 rejected the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner’s father was aged 78 years at the time of his death.
8. It is also not in dispute 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 in view of the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 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 12.09.2019 vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed. The respondent No.3 is directed to consider the application 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