IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.1074/2019 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN:
SRI K. MANJUNATH REDDY, S/O LATE C KODANDARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GUTTAHALI VILLAGE(BANGARUTIRUPATHI) BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, K G F TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563116. .. PETITIONER (BY SRI PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 07.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANENXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Papi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.V.Shivareddy, for H. C. Kavita, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing with consent of the parties. Same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashing of the endorsement dated 07.12.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 4. Facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner’s father was granted the authorization to run Fair Price Distribution Point at Guttahalli Village, Bangarapete Taluk, to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders attached to his shop about 30 years back. Unfortunately the father of the petitioner expired on 28.06.2017. The petitioner thereupon submitted an application to respondent No.2 seeking transfer of authorization in his name. Respondent No.2 has rejected the application of the petitioner that with reference to paragraph 13 of the Karnataka Essential commodities Public Distribution System Regulation 2016 and Amendment Order dated 5.6.2017, the petitioner does not qualify the criteria with regard to the age as contained in the rules which were amended on 10.06.2016.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the order dated 20.2.2017 passed in W.P.No.6993/2017 and also the order dated 27.04.2017 passed in W.P.No.17617/2017 submitted that the issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra and has been adjudicated.
6. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader submits that in W.P.No.22448/2015 referred to in W.P.No. 6993/2017, the amended provision of the Rules were taken into consideration and therefore the aforesaid decision has no application to the fact situation of the case. However, it was fairly submitted by him that the respondents have neither filed an application seeking review of the order dated 20.02.2017, nor have filed any writ appeal against the aforesaid order.
7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
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 07.12.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to take note 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.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE rs