Karnataka High Court
Sri Naveena vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9006
WP No. 30278 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 30278 OF 2024 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
SRI NAVEENA
S/O LATE MALLIKARJUN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NO.6, SIDDARAHALLI VAPUNSAE
KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR
KARNATAKA - 577548
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD
AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Location: High DEPARTMENT FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
Court of CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT
Karnataka CHIKAMAGALUR - 577 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR, AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF WRIT QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
14.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CHIKKAMAGALUR VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO RUN
THE FAIR PRICE SHOP AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9006
WP No. 30278 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Smt. Rakshitha D.J., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri. Mohammad Jaffar, the learned Additional
Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the
judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.25947/2022
disposed of on 02.01.2023, wherein this Court has held as
follows:
"3. Learned counsel, Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, appearing
for the petitioner would submit that the endorsement
comes about on two grounds; one being, the application
for such transfer is filed after a delay of 90 days, as is
required in law and the other ground is that, the age of
the petitioner which is beyond 30 years at the time of
the death of his father to hold the license of
authorization as a transferee.
4. It is not in dispute that the authorization was
subsisting in the name of the father of the petitioner at
NC: 2025:KHC:9006
the time of his death. Both these grounds are held to be
contrary to law in terms of the judgments rendered by
Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of M/S.
SHRI. MALLIKARJUN ASHOK MATTI Vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in WP.No.105404/2018,
disposed on 04.12.2018, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court has held as follows:
"The petitioner's father was running a fair
price shop (shop No.84) in Hubballi and the
authorization was being renewed from time to
time. The petitioner's father died on 16.10.2017
and the petitioner made an application to the
respondent-Authorities seeking transfer of
authorization in his name. The application is dated
25.06.2018. The Competent Authority i.e.
respondent No.4-Assistant Director of Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Hubballi issued an
endorsement dated 17.07.2018 rejecting the
application, while referring to the proviso to Rule
13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public
Distribution System (Control Order), 2016
(hereinafter referred to as 'Control Order, 2016'
for brevity).
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri.S.H.Mittalkod submits that the Co-ordinate
Benches of this Court have passed several orders
in this regard holding that the prescriptions
incorporated in the subsequent control orders as
regards the age of the applicant, minimum
educational qualification, etc., are not applicable to
the case of the petitioner since what was sought
by the petitioner was not a grant of fresh
authorization to carry on the business of retail
vending and the same requirement as were made
applicable while granting the authorization earlier
should be made applicable. Learned counsel for
the petitioner would further submit that under the
Control Order, 1992, which was applicable when
the authorization was issued to the father of the
petitioner, there is no prescription as is provided in
the proviso to Rule 13 of the Control Order, 2016.
3. Learned Addl. Government Advocate,
appearing for the respondents would submit that
NC: 2025:KHC:9006
since the application is made in the year 2017, the
provisions of law as on 2017 should be made
applicable.
4. Having heard the learned counsels,
what falls for consideration is whether the
requirement of making the application within a
period of 90 days as provided in the proviso to
Clause 13 of the Control Order, 2016 would apply
in the facts and circumstances of the case. Clause
13 of the Control Order, 2016 reads as follows:
"13. Prohibition of Transfer of Authorization:
No authorized dealer shall assign or transfer
his authorization to any other person by and
no person shall carry on business as a
transferee or otherwise on behalf of any
such authorized dealer.
"Provided that the authorized
authority may order for such transfer in the
even of the death of the authorized dealer
before 60 years of age, to the spouse or son
or unmarried daughter, in case he or she is
above 18 years and less than 30 years (or
40 years for unmarried daughters) of age
having passed 10th standard and has
applied for transfer within 90 days of the
death of the authorized dealer, with the
prior approval of the commissioner for a
maximum period of 3 years viz., the period
of validity of a fresh authorization.""
5. The Co-ordinate Benches of this
Court in W.P.No.8586/2006 which was
decided on 21.11.2008 and in many other
writ petitions including W.P.No.55097/2017
dated 11.12.2017, W.P.No.204335/2014
dated 17.11.2017, have held that the
provisions that were prevailing when the
original authorization was granted has to be
made applicable and not the new
prescriptions that have come about
subsequent to the issuance of authorization.
NC: 2025:KHC:9006
6. There is substance in the
argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner when he submits that this Court,
while considering the proviso to Clause 13 of
the Control Order, 2016 has held that the
prescription of age and the minimum
educational qualification for persons who
seek transfer on compassionate grounds
cannot be made applicable and directed the
Authorities to consider their applications
without insisting on the minimum
educational qualification and the age limit
prescribed in the proviso and when that
being the case, the technical ground of
making the application within a period of 90
days also should not be made applicable or
should be considered with leniency.
7. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that even if there is a delay in
making the application seeking transfer of
authorization on compassionate grounds, the
same could be condoned and the respondent-
Authorities should consider the application.
8. In the light of the above, the
impugned order dated 17.07.2018 passed by
respondent No.4 is hereby quashed and set
aside. Respondent No.4 is hereby directed to
reconsider the application of the petitioner
without going into the question of delay, in
the light of the observations made above.
(Emphasis supplied)
and in W.P.No.15098/2017, wherein it has held as
follows:
"2. The petitioner is before this Court
assailing the endorsement dated 31.08.2016 impugned
at Annexure-C to the petition. In that light, the
petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to direct the
respondent No.1 to consider the application dated
19.07.2016 as at Annexure-B to the petition.
3. The father of the petitioner was granted
the authorization for running the fair price shop and
distributing the food grains and kerosene to the
NC: 2025:KHC:9006
cardholders. The authorization was renewed from time
to time and was effective when the father of the
petitioner died on 29.05.2016. The petitioner, in that
view has made an application seeking transfer of the
authorization on compassionate grounds. The
respondent No.1 on taking note of the application has
issued the endorsement dated 31.08.2016 informing
the petitioner that the application cannot be considered
as it does not meet the age criteria that has been
indicated therein. It is in that view, the petitioner is
before this Court assailing the said endorsement dated
31.08.2016.
4. Though, contentions have been urged
in this petition, the same need not be adverted to
in detail inasmuch as this Court, while disposing
of W.P.No.204335/2014 dated 17.11.2014 has
considered this aspect of the matter and has held
that the condition relating to age of the deceased
or the applicant for the purpose of transfer of
authorization on compassionate grounds would
not be justified. In that light, a similar
endorsement has been quashed by this Court. The
said decision had been relied on by this Court in a
similar petition in W.P.No.49519/2016 dated
26.10.2016.
5. If that be the position, the impugned
endorsement dated 31.08.2016 assailed herein also
would not be sustainable, the same is accordingly
quashed. A direction is issued to respondent No.1 to
consider the application dated 19.07.2016 filed by the
petitioner for the transfer of authorization on
compassionate grounds. The consideration shall be
made as expeditiously as possible but, not later than
two months from the date on which a copy of this order
is furnished."
(emphasis supplied)
4. The learned Additional Government
Advocate would refute the submissions to contend that
there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner
in filing the application, which is close to 4 years after
the death of the deceased - licensee and the
endorsement is issued on 10.05.2019, third party rights
would be created by now. He would therefore, seek this
NC: 2025:KHC:9006
Court to pass appropriate orders protecting those
interests.
5. In the light of the issue being covered by the
judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this
Court (supra), I deem it appropriate to pass the
following:
ORDER
I. The writ petition is allowed.
II. The endorsement dated 10.05.2019 passed
by respondent No.3, stands quashed.
III. Respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider
the application of the petitioner bearing in
mind the observations made in the course of
the order, within 12 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, if the same is
not allotted to any other person as on date."
3. In the light of the order passed by this Court
(supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The endorsement dated 14.08.2024 passed by
respondent No.2, stands quashed.
(iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the
representation of the petitioner bearing in
mind the observations made in the course of
NC: 2025:KHC:9006
the order, only if the same is not allotted to
anyone else as on today.
Sd/-
______________________
JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
KG
