[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sharanabasappa S/O Anandappa Jakkal vs The Deputy Commissioner on 1 December, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16199
WP No. 108824 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 108824 OF 2025 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
SHARANABASAPPA S/O. ANANDAPPA JAKKAL,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. MALAGUNDI ONI, RON TALUK,
DIST. GADAG - 582 209.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY
AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
DIST: GADAG - 582 101.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLY
AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, GADAG,
DIST. GADAG 582 101.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS, GADAG,
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S DIST. GADAG 582 101.
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, 4. THE TAHASILDAR,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad DEPARTMENT OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLY
AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, TQ. RON,
DIST. GADAG 582 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED
BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES
AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE) IN NO.
AHAR.NYABEAM.VAHI.01.24-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-G BY ALLOWING THE
WRIT PETITION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16199
WP No. 108824 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for
respondents.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer.
"I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing
the endorsement issued by the Deputy Director
(Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer
Affairs, Deputy Commissioners office) in No.
AHAR.NYABEAM.VAHI.01.24-25 vide Annexure-G
by allowing the writ petition in the ends of justice
and equity.
II. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus by direction the 3rd respondent Deputy
Director (Department of Food, Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs, Deputy Commissioners Office
Gadag) to transfer the fare price shop license
bearing no.131/pattan in the name of petitioner on
the compassionate ground in the ends of justice
and equity.
III. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case and pass such other
suitable order/s directions as deems fit in the ends
of justice."
3. The learned counsel to the petitioner submits the
issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16199
HC-KAR
the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.100563/2025 disposed of
on 12.09.2025. The same reads as under:
"The present appeal is filed by the petitioner before
the learned Single Judge aggrieved by the order passed in
the writ petition whereby, the petition came to be rejected.
2. Parties are referred to by their rank in the writ
proceedings for the purpose of convenience.
3. The writ petition was filed calling in question
correctness of the endorsement dated 08.07.2025 at
Annexure-A whereby the application made by the petitioner
seeking for transfer of authorization consequent to the
death of his mother who was the authorized holder came to
be rejected on the ground that the age of the applicant was
above 65 years and it was impermissible in such cases to
transfer authorization in light of the Clause 13 of the
Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2016.
4. The learned Single Judge by the order has
rejected the petition with the reasoning as found in para 3
of the order which reads as under:
"3. On perusal of the cause title and the verifying affidavit
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16199
HC-KAR
filed along with the writ petition, it is evident that the
petitioner had attained the age of 65 years as on the date
of filing the petition. In terms of the applicable rules, once
an authorized dealer attains the age of 65 years, renewal of
authorization is not permissible. Accordingly, the transfer of
authorization on compassionate grounds to the petitioner,
who has already crossed the age of 65 years, is also
impermissible and cannot be sustained."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point
out that the restriction and transfer of authorization in case
the authorized owner is dead as contained in Clause 13 of
the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2016 would apply prospectively
and such restriction cannot apply retrospectively. It is
contended in the present case that as the authorization was
issued in the year 2003, the restrictions imposed by
amendment of Clause 13 after 2016 cannot be a bar for
transfer of authorization insofar as the petitioner is
concerned. Reliance is placed on various orders of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions
No.104186/2022, 105404/2018 and in Writ Petitions
No.765/2024 and connected matters.
6. Perused the order passed in Writ Petition
No.765/2024. The relevant observations made are found at
para Nos.6 to 8 and 10 read as follows:
"6. Clause 13 of the unamended Public
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16199
HC-KAR
Distribution System (Control Order, 1992) dealt with the
prohibition of the transfer of authorization. It states that no
authorized dealer shall assign or transfer their authorization
to any other person, nor shall any person carry on
business on behalf of such an authorized dealer.
However, a proviso to Clause 13 allows for the transfer of
authorization in the event of the death of an authorized
dealer, with prior approval of the Government, to the
spouse, son, or unmarried daughter of the deceased.
7. Subsequent amendments to Clause 13, made in
2016, 2017, and 2021, introduced restrictions on the
transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. The
amended provisions prohibit such transfers if the
authorized dealer was over the age of 65 at the time of
death or if the transferee had not completed the 10th
standard and did not apply for the transfer within 90
days of the death.
8. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No.
13559/2022, upheld the validity of the amended proviso to
Clause 13, but it was dealing with a challenge related to the
renewal of authorization on compassionate grounds. In
W.P. No. 55097/2017, disposed of on 11.12.2017, this
Court held that the condition regarding the age limit
imposed in the amended Clause 13 was not sustainable.
The decision in W.P. No.204335/2014, which was followed
in W.P. No.43249/2017, ruled similarly. Furthermore, in
W.P. No.103408/2023, disposed of on 12.06.2023, this
Court reiterated that the restrictions introduced in the
Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021 were prospective
in nature and could not be applied retrospectively to
authorizations granted under the unamended Control
Order of 1992. Therefore, these restrictions are only
applicable to applicants seeking fresh authorizations and
not to existing authorized dealers or their legal heirs.
10. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench clearly
establishes that there can be no discrimination between
married and unmarried daughters when it comes to the
transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds.
Discriminating against daughters based solely on their
marital status violates the principles of equality enshrined
in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16199
HC-KAR
7. In light of the enunciation of law by the
learned Single Judge which we find was holding the field as
on the date of passing of the order in the present case, the
learned Single Judge ought to have passed an order in
terms of the law as contained in the orders passed by the
co-ordinate Bench of this court as referred to above.
6. Accordingly, we find no reason to take a
different stand as that taken by the learned Single Judge in
the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
referred to above. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 29.07.2025 passed in Writ Petition
No.105153/2025 by the learned Single Judge is set-
aside.
(iii) The endorsement at Annexure-A is set-aside.
(iv) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider application
made by the petitioner for transfer of authorization
and pass orders within a period of three months from
today."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16199
HC-KAR
4. In the light of the issue standing covered by the
judgment passed by the Division Bench (supra), I deem it
appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The endorsement dated 09.10.2025 passed by
the respondent No.3 stands quashed.
iii) The petitioner is at liberty to submit a
representation and if any representation is
submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be
considered within 12 weeks from the date of its
application.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
RSH/CT-ASC
