Karnataka High Court
Krishnegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43762
WP No. 25427 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 25427 OF 2023 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O LATE TIPPAREGOWDA
R/O SINGASANDRA VILLAGE
HAROHALLI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
GROUND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
Digitally signed by BANGALORE - 560 001
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES,
COURT OF RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA
RAMANAGARA - 562 159
3. THE THASILDAR,
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DTD 10.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE R2 IN NO.RA
JI/FOOD/ANUKAMPA/10/2023-24 AT ANNEXURE-B; ISSUE WRIT TO
THE R2 TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION DTD 20.04.2023
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43762
WP No. 25427 of 2023
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A1 IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DTD
04.01.2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.24467/2022 AT ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an
endorsement dated 10.10.2023, by which, the application of
the petitioner seeking transfer of authorization on
compassionate grounds comes to be rejected.
2. Heard Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Kiran Kumar, learned HCGP
appearing for the respondents and have perused the material
on record.
3. Learned counsel, Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, appearing for
the petitioner would submit that the endorsement comes about
on the ground that the age of the father was above 65 years at
the time when he died and therefore, the authorization cannot
be transferred. This is held to be contrary to law by the
judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.17048/2021 disposed on 20.09.2021, wherein it has
held as follows:
NC: 2023:KHC:43762
"The subject matter of this Writ Petition is
substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.17131/2018
disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
8.2.2019, copy whereof is at Annexure-F; at para Nos.9 &
10 of the order, said judgment reads as under:
"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 23.03.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside
and a direction is issued to respondent No.1 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."
2. 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 like-
cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, similar
relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced
litigant as well, there being no derogatory
circumstances.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is
allowed; impugned endorsement dated 03.09.2021 at
Annexure-B is quashed; second respondent is directed to
consider the petitioner's application without reference to
age and qualification.
Time for compliance is two months.
No costs."
(emphasis supplied)
NC: 2023:KHC:43762
4. In the light of the fact that the issue in the lis
stands covered to the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court (supra), which is not disputed by the learned AGA,
I deem it appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The endorsement dated 10.10.2023 stands
quashed.
iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the
application of the petitioner bearing in mind the
observations in the course of the order within 12
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order, if not already issued.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KG
