Karnataka High Court
Jai Ambabhavani Shtri Shakti Sangh vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:226
WP No. 102557 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.102557 OF 2022 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
1. JAI AMBABHAVANI SHTRI SHAKTI SANGH,
CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591217,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
BHARATI BASAVARAJ JADAV,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SRI. ANNASAB MARUTI KURANE,
AGE: 45 YEARS,. OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI &
SRI. SUNIL KHOT, ADVOCATES)
AND:
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Digitally
signed by DEPT. OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR CONSUMER AFFAIRS, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-01.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
BELAGAVI, DIST: BEALGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:226
WP No. 102557 of 2022
5. THE TAHSILDAR, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BEALGAVI.
6. PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTHIN SAHAKAR
SANGH NIYAMIT, (GUDATAYI THOTA),
CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BEALGAVI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO 5;
SRI. SADIQ GOODWALA, ADV. FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD.8.06.2022 MADE IN NO.APUVI/ADAA/NYABEAN/VINIDI-
406/2021-22 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-B AS THE SAME BEING ILLEGAL AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EUQITY.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated 08.06.2022
made in No.Apuvi/AdaA/NyaBeAn/ViNiDi-406/2021-
22 passed by the 4th respondent herein produced at
Annexure-B as the same being illegal and not
sustainable in law.
ii. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just even
include the costs of this petition in the interest of
justice and equity.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:226
2. Petitioner No.1 is a registered women's empowerment
Sangh and petitioner No.2 is an unemployed person
belonging to Schedule Caste category claimed to be
from Chinchali Town Panchayath in Raibag Taluk. The
petitioners aggrieved by a notification issued by
respondent No.4 issuing an authorization to run a Fair
Price Shop in favour of respondent No.6 vide order
dated 08.06.2022 without issuing public notification
giving wide publicity to the general public and
associations and societies are before this court
seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. The contention of Sri. Ramachandra A. Mali, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner is that whenever
any authorization or license are required to be issued,
necessary notification inviting applications are
required to be issued and given wide publicity which
has not been done. In this regard, he relies on a
judgment of this Court dated 27.10.2021 in
W.P.Nos.103308/2021 and other connected matters.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:226
4. Sri Sadiq N.Goodwala, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.6 would submit that there is an
exception carved out under Rule 6 of the Karnataka
Essential Commodities Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred as 'the
Order' for brevity) and as such, there would be no
requirement of notification being published inviting
the applications. Respondent No.6 being a Prathamik
Krishi Pattin Sahakar Sangha Niyamita i.e., a Primary
Agriculture Co-operative Society is covered under
Rule 6(1)(b)(ii) of the Order and as such,
authorization has been rightly issued in favour of
respondent No.6 and license issued subsequently.
Thus, he submits that the above writ petition is
required to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and
perused the papers.
6. The only issue in the present matter is whether the
notification has to be issued inviting applications for
NC: 2024:KHC-D:226
grant of authorization and subsequent license. Rule 6
of the Order which has been referred to by learned
counsel Sri. Sadiq N.Goodwala, is one relating to
order of priority and does not provide for issuance of
authorization without publication. It is only on a
publication being made and applications being
received that those applications would have to be
categorized in terms of Rule 6 of the Order and
priority determined. Rule 6 does not do away with
requirement of issuance of notification as held by this
Court in the order dated 27.10.2021 in
W.P.No.103501/2021 and other connected matter. As
such, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued, the impugned order
dated 08.06.2022 passed by respondent
No.4 insofar as respondent No.6 is concerned
is quashed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:226
iii. Respondent No.4 is directed to issue a
notification inviting application within a
period of 45 days from the date of receipt of
copy of this order and process the same in
terms of the observations made herein
above.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM
