Smt Prabhu Geetha Sulatha Shenoy vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11714 Kant

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO.17811 OF 2022 (GM-PDS)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PRABHU GEETHA SULATHA SHENOY
W/O SADANANDA SHENOY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1-16-1079
URWA CHILIMBI, MANGALURU,
ASHOK NAGAR, D K -575 006.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAKESH KINI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
        DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
        AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
        VIDHANA SOUDHA,
        BENGALURU-560001

2.      THE COMMISSIONER
        DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
        CONSUMERS AFFAIRS,
        (PROCUREMENT AND DISTRIBUTION BRANCH)
        BENGALURU-560001
                              2




3.    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
      DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES,
      CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
      DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
      MANGALURU-575005.
                                        ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER OF R3 BEARING NO.DDR(1)/CR 60/2022-23 DTD
11.08.2022         AT          ANNEXURE-A          AND
ISSUE DIRECTION TO R3, DIRECTING R3 TO COMMUNICATE TO
THE PETITIONER THAT THE AUTHORIZATION GRANTED IN HER
FAVOUR ON 11.10.2019 STOOD EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF
FIVE YEARS FROM 11.10.2019 IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT ORDER
DATED 17.03.2020 UNDER DEEMED CLAUSE, AS PER
ANNEXURE-G.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

The short grievance of the petitioner is against denial

of transfer of renewal of Authorisation on the ground that

under the then existing PDS (Control) Order, 2016, the

tenure was 3 years, whereas the same has been now

elongated to 10 years by way of amendment. Learned

counsel for the petitioner complains that this aspect having

not been addressed in the impugned order, there is an error

apparent on its face. He also banks upon a decision of this

Court in W.P.No.15602/2022 between ANIL KUMAR N T Vs.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, disposed of on

10.08.2022.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate on

request having accepted notice for the respondents,

opposes the petition contending that the decision taken by

the authority is consistent with the law then obtaining.

However, petitioner can approach the Civil Court instead of

invoking the constitutional jurisdiction.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, the relief needs to

be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as the impugned

order does not reflect the change of law i.e., amendment to

Rule 13 of the PDS (Control) Order of 2016. The matter is

more or less covered by the judgment supra.

4. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-

933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF

KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY

disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should

treat the like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant

it has to be extended to a similarly circumstanced litigant as

well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

In the above said circumstances, petition succeeds. A

writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order at

Annexure-A. Matter is remitted to respondent No.3 for

consideration afresh in accordance with law. The

consideration would take place in the light of the

representation at Annexure-B keeping in view the

amendment of rule position.

SD/-

JUDGE

RD