B. Nagaraj vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11161 Kant

                             -1-




                                      WP No. 104966 of 2021


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                           BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


       WRIT PETITION NO. 104966 OF 2021 (GM-PDS)


BETWEEN:
     B. NAGARAJ
     S/O. LATE B. TIMMAPPA ,
     AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
     R/O.KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
     TAL AND DIST. BALLARI-583 117
                                              .....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M S HARAVI, ADVOCATE)


AND:
1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
     TO GOVERNMENT FOOD,
     CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,
     M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     (FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT)
     BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583 101

3.   THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
     FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
     DEPARTMENT, BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583 101
4. THE TAHASILDAR, BALLARI,
     TAL AND DIST. BALLARI- 583101.
                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, AGA)
                                -2-




                                         WP No. 104966 of 2021


     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT       NO.AAS-7/NYA.BE.AM/PA.VYA/ANU/02/2019-20
DATED 25-06-2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER
ANNEXURE-F AND ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO
TRANSFER THE AUTHORIZATION OF FAIR PRICE SHOP LICENSE IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH IN RESPECT OF
KARCHEDU VILLAGE IN BALLARI TALUKA AND DISTRICT.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.

                            ORDER

The petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement dated

25.06.2019 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-

F, has filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading as to filing of the writ petition

are as under:

The petitioner is a resident of Karchedu village in

Ballari Taluka and District. The father of the petitioner

Late. B. Timmappa was holding authorization of Fair Price

Shop licence issued by respondent to distribute food

grains to the cardholders of Masidipura village in Ballari

Taluka. He was granted licence in the year 1993 and the

same was renewed from time to time and licence expired

WP No. 104966 of 2021

on 31.12.2019. The father of the petitioner died leaving

behind his widow and three daughters and two sons. The

petitioner being elder son submitted an application to the

respondent requesting the transfer of the authorization of

Fair Price Shop on compassionate ground. Third

respondent has issued an endorsement dated 25.06.2019

rejecting the application holding that as per Clause 13 of

Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution

System) (amendment) Control Orders, 2017 as the

petitioner was over aged as on the date of death of his

father, i.e., he was aged about 34 years and hence, he is

not entitled for transfer of authorization. Hence, the

petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the

matter is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court in the case of G.T. Nagaraj Vs. State of

Karnataka and others, in W.P.No.100899/2021

dated 16.03.2021 wherein this Court has held that the

stipulation regarding age either of the petitioner or his

WP No. 104966 of 2021

father as per Rule 13 of relevant Rules cannot be

construed strictly so as to reject the application of the

petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the endorsement

at Annexure-F dated 25.06.2019 deserves to be quashed

and respondent No.3 may be directed to transfer the

licence.

4. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate

for respondents submits that there is no merit in the

petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

petitioner that the matter is squarely covered by the

judgment of G.T. Nagaraj (supra), this Court has held

that merely because the age of either applicant or his

deceased father do not satisfy the requirement of Rule 13,

the said requirement is only directory mandatory and the

same would not come in the way of applicant seeking

transfer of licence standing in the name of his deceased

father to his name. Under the circumstances, applying the

WP No. 104966 of 2021

law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, I am

of the view that the impugned endorsement at Annexure-F

dated 25.06.2019 issued by the third respondent deserves

to be quashed. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed.

The impugned endorsement at Annexure-F dated

25.06.2019 issued by the third respondent is hereby

quashed.

The respondent authorities are directed to transfer

licence standing in the name of the petitioner's father to

the name of the petitioner as requested in his

representation dated 20.06.2019 at Annexure-D in

accordance with law within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

SD/-

JUDGE

Naa