IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.48966 OF 2015 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN:
Sri.Nazarulla S/o Hasan Sab, Aged about 62 years, R/o Malebennur, Harihara Taluk-577601, Davanagere District.
... Petitioner (By. Sri. Harish N.R. for Sri. Siddappa B.M., Adv., for petitioner) AND:
1. The Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Department of Food and Supply, Consumer Affairs, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560002.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District, Davanagere-577001. ... Respondents (By Sri.Vasanth V Fernandes, HCGP) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated 17.06.2014 issued by the respondent No.2 bearing No. Authority No.02/04-05 produced as annexure-B to the writ petition and etc.
This petition is coming on for ‘preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group’ this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 17.06.2014 issued by the respondent No.2 bearing No. Authority No.02/04-05 rejecting the renewal of the authorization on the ground that the petitioner has not filed an application for renewal within the time stipulated.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the authorization was granted to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner for a period of three years to run Fair Price Shop. The petitioner’s authorization was renewed once in three years, accordingly the last renewal was made on 31.03.2011 which was valid up to 31.03.2014. Therefore, the petitioner made an application for renewal of the authorization on 03.06.2014 and explained the reasons for not making the application within the time due to his ill-health. The 2nd respondent issued an endorsement bearing No. Authority No.2/2004-05 dated 17.06.2014 rejecting the application on the ground that petitioner has not made an application within the time prescribed for renewal of the authorization. Hence, the writ petition is filed.
3. The respondents have not filed statement of objections.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both parties to the lis.
5. Sri. Harish N.R. learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is utter violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, same is liable to be quashed. He would further contend that it is undisputed fact that the 2nd respondent issued an authorization in favour of the petitioner in the year 2005 for a period of three years and renewed time to time. The petitioner made an application for renewal of authorization in the month of June 2014, but 2nd respondent rejected the application on the ground that petitioner has not made an application within the time prescribed for renewal of the authorization. He would contend that in the identical circumstances, this Court in the case of B.M.Veeresh Vs. the Commissioner and another in W.P.No.44225/2014 dated 18.03.2015 and in the case of Smt.Anusha Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and others in W.P.No.22821/2015 dated 15.06.2015 quashed the endorsement and directed the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the Circular at Annexure-F produced. In view of the above dictums, sought to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for State sought to justify the impugned order and contended that as per the Circular issued by the 1st respondent dated 22.02.2014, the petitioner has not filed an application within the time. Therefore, in view of the impugned endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner is just and proper. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner who is the authorizing Authority has granted authorization in favour of the petitioner to run Fair Price Shop in the year 2005 for a period of three years. The authorization period expires on 31.03.2014. Therefore, the application came to be filed by the petitioner stating that due to his ill heath, he could not make an application within the stipulated time. It is also not in dispute that subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued an endorsement bearing No. Authority No.2/2004-05 dated 17.06.2014 rejecting the application on the ground that the petitioner has not made an application within the time prescribed for renewal of the authorization. The 1st respondent issued Circular dated 09.02.2015 permitting the dealers for renewal of Fair Price Shop or carrying the shop by imposing penalty. It is also not in dispute that this Court in the case of B.M.Veeresh stated supra, relying upon very Circular dated 09.02.2015 at Annexure-F, directed the authority to reconsider the application for renewal of the authorization thereunder and said order has reached finality. In view of the subsequent Circular issued by the State Government dated 09.02.2015, the matter requires reconsideration afresh. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Writ petition is allowed.
Impugned endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent bearing No. Authority No.02/04-05 dated 17.06.2014 is hereby quashed.
2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to reconsider the application seeking renewal of the authorization in accordance with law and in the light of Circular dated 09.02.2015 as per Annexure-C within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS/-