IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50821 OF 2019 (GM – PDS) BETWEEN :
SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE S.R.KRISHNAIAH SETTY, RESIDING AT NO.102, VASAVI ROAD, SIDDALAGHATTA TOWN AND TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY MS.ANUJA FOR SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATES) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPUR – 562 105.
3. THE THASILDAR SIDDALAGHATTA TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 105.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE – B AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo stating that prayer No.1 will not be pressed for the present and liberty may be given to challenge the same at appropriate time.
Memo is placed on record. The prayer No.1 is dismissed as not pressed with liberty as sought for.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 22/10/2019 issued by respondent No.2 in No.Aa. Na Sa a/DRA/SHI/FPD/Pra/60/2016-17 at Annexure-B and to issue a writ of mandamus to respondent No.3 to consider the application filed by the petitioner dated 09/08/2019 produced at Annexure-A1, in terms of the order dated 08/02/2019 passed in W.P. No.17131/2018 at Annexure- C.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father S.R.Krishnaiah Shetty was granted authorization in the year 1985-86 by the jurisdictional competent authority to run a Fair Price Deport at Siddalaghatta Town to distribute the food-grains and kerosene oil to the cardholders attached to his shop. The licence was issued by respondent No.3 in the year 1992 and it was renewed once in three years. During the subsistence of licence unfortunately, father of the petitioner died on 30/06/2019 leaving behind the petitioner and his family members. As there was no bread winner of the family, petitioner has filed an application on 09/08/2019 to respondent No.3. The same was forwarded to respondent No.2, who in turn rejected the application by issuing impugned endorsement as per Annexure-B dated 22/10/2019. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. For the relief sought for.
3. I have heard the learned counsel parties to the lis.
4. Miss. Anuja, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B is erroneous and liable to be quashed. She would further contend that the amendment clause 13 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 2016 was not made applicable retrospectively to the petitioner’s case as authorization came to be issued in the name of the petitioner’s father in the year 1985-86. She would further contend that this Court in an identical circumstances in the case of Smt.Pushpa vs The Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.17131/2018, dated 18/3/2019 quashed the similar endorsement and issued directions to the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner for transfer of the authorisation on compassionate ground. Hence, she sought to allow the writ petition.
5. Learned HCGP sought to justify the impugned action.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the jurisdictional competent authority had granted authorization in favour of the father of the petitioner in the year 1985-86 to run a Fair Price Depot at Siddalaghata Town, Chickaballapur for distribution of food grains to 460 card holders. It is also not in dispute that the licence was renewed from time to time once in three years. Since the petitioner’s father died, he made an application which was rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioned died at the age of 75 and in view of clause -13 of PDS Control Order, 2016. It is also not in dispute that in an identical situation, this Court in the case of Smt.Pushpa vs The Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.17131/2018, dated 18/3/2019, relying upon the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.6993/2017 dated 20/02/2017 quashed the endorsement and directed the respondent No.1 to take note of the application filed by the petitioner and consider the same on compassionate ground within a period of eight weeks.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 22/10/2019 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B is hereby quashed;
Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to take note of the application filed by the petitioner for transfer of authorization on compassionate ground and consider the same within a period of eights weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu