Karnataka High Court
Manjunath S/O Ningappa Talanatti vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3426
WP No. 101274 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 101274 OF 2025 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH S/O. NINGAPPA TALANATTI,
AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TAVALGERI VILLAGE,
TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126.
...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.
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA 2. THE COMMISSIONER,
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
FOOD, CIVIL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
VASANTH NAGAR, 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 (I)
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.02.2025 ISSUED BY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3426
WP No. 101274 of 2025
RESPONDENT NO.3 IN NO.AAPUVI/NIYABEAM/VINIDHI-
237/2024-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. (II) ISSUE SUCH OTHER
RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following relief:
i. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned endorsement
dated 05.02.2025 issued by respondent
No.3 in No.AAPUVI/NIYABEAM/VINIDHI-
237/2024-25 vide Annexure-C.
ii. To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the circumstances of
the case.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sadiq N.
Goodwala appearing for the petitioner and the learned
AGA Sri.Sharad V.Magadum appearing for the respondent-
State.
3. The petitioner is the son of a person who held
the authorization to run a fair price shop and the
authorization was renewed and to be in subsistence after
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3426
31.03.2028. The father of the petitioner dies. The transfer
of authorization was sought. It comes to be rejected on
the ground that the petitioner is over age. The identical
issues have been answered by this Court and Coordinate
Benches of this Court. This Court in W.P.No.23227/2022
disposed on 28.11.2022, 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 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.
(i) This Court in the case of R. GAYATHRI Vs.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD AND CIVIL
SUPPLIES) AND OTHERS 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3426
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, 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3426
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
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 OTHERS 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3426
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
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 authorization 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3426
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
authorization on compassionate grounds in
respect of the authorization 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
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 OTHER 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
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3426
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 likecases 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".
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3426
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:
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 that light, petition deserves to succeed.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i. Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned endorsement dated
05.02.2025 issued by respondent No.3
vide Annexure-C stands quashed.
iii. Mandamus issues to the respondent No.3
to transfer the authorization that was in
the name of the father of the petitioner
within an outer limit of 2 months from the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3426
date of receipt of the copy of the order, if
it is not already allotted to someone else.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
KGK/CT-GTB
