IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.29949/2019 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN:
SRI. TANOJI RAO M.P., S/O LATE C.B.PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF WADNAL RAJANNA, EXTENSION, CHANNAGIRI TOWN, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SIDDAPPA B. M., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577 001.
4. THE THASILDAR, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, CHANNAGIRI-577 213. ... 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 2.7.2019 ISSUED BY R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, office objection is ignored.
Mr.Siddappa B.M., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.V.Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for 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 quashment of endorsement dated 02.07.2019 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-D.
4. The facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner’s father was granted the authorization to run Fair Price Distribution Point to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders attached to his shop. Unfortunately, the father of the petitioner expired on 23.05.2019. The petitioner thereupon, submitted an application dated 26.06.2019 to respondent No.3 seeking transfer of authorization in his name. Respondent No.3 has rejected the same by impugned endorsement dated 02.07.2019 on the ground that 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 20.02.2017 passed in W.P.No.6993/2017 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 authorization 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 02.07.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside and a direction is issued to respondent No.3 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.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RD