Karnataka High Court
Shridhar S/O. Late Manohar Hulbutti vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2296
WP No. 100693 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 100693 OF 2025 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
SHRIDHAR S/O. LATE MANOHAR HULBUTTI,
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHUNCHAWAD, TQ. KHANAPUR,
DIST. BELAGAVI -590001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT.
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU -01.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
FOOD, CIVIL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
BENGALURU -32.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
FOOD, CIVIL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT.
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI -590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
DATED. 28-01-2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 IN NO.
AAPUVI/NIYABEAM/VINIDHI-231/2024-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2296
WP No. 100693 of 2025
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. The learned counsel Shri Sadiq N.Goodwala
appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis
stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in
W.P. No.23227/2022 disposed on 28th November 2022.
2. The learned AGA, Sri. Sharad V. Magadum would
not dispute the position of law as laid down by the
Coordinate Bench, in the aforesaid judgment.
3. The Coordinate Bench has held as follows:
"The petitioner is before this Court calling in
question, the rejection of the application of the
petitioner seeking transfer of the authorization on
compassionate grounds. The ground on which it is
turned down is that, the father of the petitioner at
the time of his death was above 79 years. It is
not in dispute that the authorization in favour of the
father was subsisting at the time of his death.
2. Heard Sri. Shivaramu H.C., learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi
Patel, HCGP appearing for the respondents and
perused the materials on record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the issue in lis stands covered by the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2296
judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.No.8586/2006 disposed on
21.11.2008, W.P.No.22448/2015 disposed on
21.09.2016 and W.P.No.17048/2021 disposed on
20.09.2021. This Court in the case of R.
GAYATHRI Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES) AND OTHERS1
has held as follows:
"The petitioner's husband held a
Kerosene Oil Hawker licence under the
provisions of the Essential Commodities
Licensing Order. 1986 valid upto 31.12.2003
and on his death on 8.9.2003, having made an
application for transfer of the said licence, on
compassionate ground in terms of the
notification dated 3.12.1984, which when
refused by order dated 4.5.2006 Annexure B,
on the premise that the notification dated
12.8.2003 Annexure C prescribed minimum
educational qualification of 10th standard, has
presented this petition to quash Annexure B
and to declare Annexure C as not applicable to
the petitioner and the like, as also for a
mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to grant
licence in petitioner's favour.
2. The petition is opposed by filing
statement objections dated 18.12.2006 of the
respondent inter alia contending that on and
after coming into force of the notification dated
12.8.2003 Annexure C issued under Karnataka
Essential Commodities (Public Distribution
System) Control Order, 1992, prescribing a
pass in the 10th standard as eligibility to run
a Fair Price Shop and as the petitioner's
qualification was a pass in 9th standard
falling short of eligibility criteria, the claim
of the petitioner for grant of fresh authorization
on compassionate ground was not acceptable
and that the order impugned is well merited,
W.P. No.8586/2006 disposed on 21.11.2008
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2296
fully justified and not calling for interference.
Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, perused the pleadings and examined
the order impugned, there is considerable
force in the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the notification Annexure
C under Karnataka Essential Commodities
(Public Distribution System) Control
(Amendment) Order 2003 dated 12.8.2003
prescribing pass in 10th standard as eligibility
to run Fair Price Shop in a particular area for
the purpose of grant of authorization to open a
fair price depot, is not applicable to the case
of the petitioner since what was sought by
the petitioner was a grant of fresh
authorization to carry on business of retail
vending of kerosene which her husband was
carrying on in terms of Essential Commodities
Order which did not prescribe any educational
qualification. The State Govt. failed to notice
that the Amendment Order 2003 Annexure C
would have application to fresh candidates
applying pursuant to a notification issued under
CL(4) of PDS Control Order, 1992, fixing the
eligibility as pass in 10th standard amongst
other conditions. These conditions had no
bearing on the claim of the petitioner for grant
of fresh authorization on compassionate ground
in terms of circular dated 21.7.1995. In that
view of the matter, the order impugned is
unsustainable and deserves to be quashed
In the result, the petition is allowed in
part. The order dated 4.5.2006 Annexure B is
quashed and it is hereby declared that the
notification dated 12.8.2003 Annexure C is not
applicable to the case of the petitioner. A
mandamus is issued directing the respondents
1 and 2 to consider the application of the
petitioner afresh and to pass orders thereon in
accordance with law, in any event, within a
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2296
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
(ii) This Court in the case of SMT. B.V.
GANGARATHNAMMA Vs. THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (FOOD) AND OTHERS2 has
held as follows:
The petitioner is before this Court
assailing the endorsement dated 17.01.2015
impugned at Annexure-G to the petition. The
petitioner in that light is seeking issue of
mandamus to direct respondents No.1 and 2 to
transfer the authorization and licence in favour
of the petitioner in terms of the order dated
25.07.2014 passed in W.P.No.33639/2014.
2. The petitioner is claiming transfer
of authorization for distribution of the Kerosene
in Licence No.3/91 which had been issued to
the husband of the petitioner. The husband of
the petitioner died on 21.01.2014 and as such
the petitioner had sought transfer of
authorization on compassionate grounds. At
the first instance, when the endorsement dated
28.05.2014 was issued to the petitioner
rejecting her claim on the ground that she
does not satisfy the educational criteria and
inasmuch as she had not completed her
matriculation, the petitioner was before this
Court in W.P.No.33639/2014. This Court by
the order dated 25.07.2014 on taking note of
the order dated 21.11.2008 passed in
W.P.No.8586/2006 as also the order dated
24.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.18787/2014, had
set aside the endorsement and directed that
the application of the petitioner be
reconsidered. On reconsideration the impugned
endorsement dated 17.01.2015 is issued
wherein the application is once again rejected
by stating that the petitioner does not satisfy
W.P. No.22448/2015 disposed on 21.09.2016
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2296
the educational criteria of having completed
the VII standard. It is in that view the
petitioner is before this Court seeking benefit
of the earlier order passed by this Court.
3. Learned Government Advocate
would however point out that the issue that
had arisen for consideration in
W.P.No.33639/2014 was with regard to the
insistence of matriculation qualification and
not relating to the VII Standard. Hence, it is
contended that the very benefit granted under
the said order cannot be extended unless the
petitioner satisfies the condition of completing
the VII standard.
4. Though such contention is put forth
by the learned Government Advocate, what is
necessary to be noticed is that this Court in
the earlier order had relied on the order dated
21.11.2008 passed in W.P.No.8586/2006.
What had arisen for consideration in the said
petition is as to whether the minimum
educational qualification prescribed for
making application for grant of authorisation
could be insisted upon in respect of the
application filed seeking transfer of
authorization on compassionate grounds. In
that regard this Court had held that the
educational qualification prescribed can only be
insisted upon prospectively in respect of the
fresh applications filed seeking authorization
and cannot be made applicable to transfer of
authorisation on compassionate grounds in
respect of the authorisation which had been
issued earlier.
5. If that be the position, when an
application is considered for transfer of
authorization on compassionate grounds either
insisting on the matriculation or the lesser
educational qualification of VII standard would
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2296
not be justified as otherwise the very purpose
of considering an application for compassionate
transfer would be defeated. Therefore the
endorsement dated 17.01.2015 is quashed.
6. A direction is issued to the first
respondent to consider the application filed by
the petitioner and transfer the authorization
which stood in the name of the husband of the
petitioner to the name of the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible, but not later than
eight weeks from the date on which a copy of
this order is furnished.
The petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
(iii) This Court in the case of HEMANTH
KUMAR B O Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHER3 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
W.P. No.17048/2021 disposed on 20.09.2021
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2296
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 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".
In the light of the issue standing
covered by the judgments rendered by a co-
ordinate Benches (supra), I deem it
appropriate to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2296
ORDER
i. The Writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned endorsement dated
16.09.2022 issued by respondent
No.2, bearing No.GI
AA/NYA.AM/08/2022-23 is quashed.
iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to re-
consider the application of the
petitioner for transfer of
authorization bearing in mind the
observations made in the course
of this order, within 12 weeks
from the date receipt of a copy of
this order, if not earlier."
4. In the light of the aforesaid submission, which is
in unison, the writ petition stands disposed in the aforesaid
manner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Vnp / CT: ASC
