Rooparaja Rai vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 9148 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Rooparaja Rai vs State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2023

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC:43763
                                                        WP No. 25604 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. 25604 OF 2023 (GM-PDS)

                   BETWEEN:

                          ROOPARAJA RAI
                          S/O LATE PRAHALLADA RAI,
                          AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
                          FAIR PRICE DEPOT NO.05,
                          HAREKALA, MANGALURU
                          D.K. DISTRICT - 574199
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
                          DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES
                          AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
                          VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
                          BENGALURU - 56001
Digitally signed by       REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH      2.    THE COMMISSIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                 FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES
                          AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
                          CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
                          BENGALURU - 560052

                   3.     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
                          DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES
                          AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
                          MANGALURU, D K DISTRICT - 575 001

                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)
                               -2-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC:43763
                                        WP No. 25604 of 2023




     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE   CONSTITUTION    OF   INDIA  PRAYING   TO-QUASH
ENDORSEMENT DTD 03.11.2023 BEARING NO.MISALI(1)CR/15
/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE
R3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE
PETITIONER 01.09.2023 AND ISSUE LICENSE AFRESH VIDE
ANNEXURE-B.

    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 03.11.2023, by which, the application of

the petitioner seeking transfer of authorization on

compassionate grounds comes to be rejected.

2. Heard Sri. Rajashekar S., 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. Rajashekar S., 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

NC: 2023:KHC:43763

W.P.No.17048/2021 disposed on 20.09.2021, wherein it has

held as follows:

"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

NC: 2023:KHC:43763

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)

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 03.11.2023 stands quashed.

iii) Respondents/Competent Authority 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