Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivanand S/O Vithal Durgi vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB
WA No. 100131 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100131 OF 2025 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVANAND S/O VITHAL DURGI
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC.
R/O GORAGUDDI, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591126
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SADIQ N GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT
AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
M.S. BUILDING, VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU-01
Digitally signed
by V N BADIGER
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND
KARNATAKA CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS ,
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
FOOD CIVIL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS, BELAGAVI
DIST. BELAGAVI-590001
4. THE TAHASILDAR
SAUNDATTI, TQ. SAUNDATTI
DIST. BELAGAVI-591126
5. SRI MAHADEV S/O SIDDAPPA SOMANATTI
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB
WA No. 100131 of 2025
R/O BOLAKADABI, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591126
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
(SRI. SRINAND A PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
12.02.2025 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
NO.106605/2024 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
The appellant, respondent No.5 before the Writ Court,
aggrieved by order dated 12.02.2025 passed in WP
No.106605/2024, is before this Court in this intra-Court appeal
under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.
2. The parties would be referred to as per their
rankings before the Writ Court. The appellant was respondent
No.5 and respondent No.5 herein was the petitioner before the
Writ Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner as
well as respondent No.5 filed application for allotment of Fair
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB
Price Shop at Bolakadabi village, Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi
District, under Special Category in pursuance to Paper Notice
dated 15.9.2023 (Annexure-A). The application of respondent
No.5 was favoured by allotting Fair Price Shop at Bolakadabi
village. Challenging the same, the petitioner was before the
appellate Authority. When the appellate Authority refused to
grant interim order, the petitioner was before this Court in WP
No.107728/2023. The learned Single Judge granted interim
order of stay and subsequently, disposed off the petition
directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate
Authority and also directed the appellate Authority to consider
the appeal within 30 days. Thereafter, the appeal came to be
dismissed vide order dated 3.9.2024 confirming the rejection of
the claim of the petitioner seeking allotment of Fair Price Shop.
Questioning the same, the petitioner was before this Court in
WP No.106605/2024. The said writ petition was allowed
quashing the impugned order of allotment of Fair Price Shop in
favour of respondent No.5, with a direction to allot the Fair
Price Shop in favour of the petitioner, if he fulfills all other
conditions. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 is in
appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB
4. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sadiq N Goodwala
for the appellant, learned AGA Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath for
respondents No.1 to 4 and learned counsel Sri. Srinand A
Pachhapure for respondent No.5. Perused the writ appeal
papers.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5/appellant
herein would submit that the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge allowing the writ petition is contrary to the
material facts on record. Learned counsel inviting attention to
the conditions stated in the notice inviting applications would
submit that the petitioner would not possess the requisite
premises/area to store the ration articles for a period of two
months and he would also not possess the business premises.
Therefore, he submits that the learned Single Judge committed
a grave error in quashing the allotment made in favour of
respondent No.5 and directing allotment of Fair Price Shop in
favour of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel Sri. Sadiq N Goodwala further
contends that the application of the petitioner is defective.
Referring to the application of the petitioner at Annexure-B,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB
learned counsel submits that the petitioner had not applied for
allotment of Fair Price Shop meant for retail dealers, but he had
applied under the category of Karnataka Food & Civil Supplies
Corporation. Therefore, he submits that respondent
No.2/authority could not have considered the defective
application of the petitioner. Thus, he prays for allowing the
writ appeal.
7. Learned AGA, on the other hand, would submit that
both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 are not eligible
for consideration of their application for allotment of Fair Price
Shop, in pursuance of public notice dated 15.9.2023
(Annexure-A). Learned Single Judge was not justified in
directing the allotment of Fair Price Shop to the petitioner. He
submitted that instead of said direction, learned Single Judge
ought to have permitted respondent No.2 to initiate fresh
process for allotment of Fair Price Shop at Bolakadabi village.
8. Learned counsel Sri. Srinand A Pachhapure for the
petitioner supporting the order of the learned Single Judge
would submit that respondent No.5/appellant is not eligible
even to apply for allotment of Fair Price Shop at Bolakadabi
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB
village. Inviting attention of this Court to Annexure-A, paper
notice dated 15.9.2023, learned counsel would submit that for
allotment of Fair Price Shop, one of the eligibility criteria is that
the applicant should be a resident of the same village and he
must produce the residential certificate. Since respondent No.5
is the resident of Goraguddi village, he would not be entitled to
apply for allotment of Fair Price Shop at Bolakadabi village.
Learned counsel pointing out to Condition No.5 in Clause-2 of
paper notice, would submit that a person who possesses space
for storing the ration articles for a period of two months, would
be eligible for allotment of Fair Price Shop. He submits that it
is not that he should have taken the area/place on lease, but it
only states that he should possess the area indicated therein.
In that circumstances, learned counsel submits that the learned
Single Judge is justified in directing the allotment of Fair Price
Shop to the petitioner. With regard to contention of respondent
No.5 that the petitioner's application is defective, learned
counsel Sri. Srinand A Pachhapure submits that by mistake or
inadvertence in Column No.3, the petitioner has written
'Applicable' against Karnataka Food & Civil Supplies
Corporation. He would further submit that the address
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB
provided under 'Address & inner dimensions', by the petitioner
would suggest the petitioner's request for individual allotment
of Fair Price Shop. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ
appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, the only point that
would fall for consideration in this appeal is as to, whether the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge requires
interference?
10. Answer to the above point would be in the
'negative' for the following reasons:
11. Admittedly, the petitioner is a resident of
Bolakadabi village and respondent No.5 is a resident of
Goraguddi village. Under paper notice dated 15.9.2023
(Annexure-A), respondent No.3 invited applications from
eligible applicants for allotment of Fair Price Shop to physically
challenged persons under special category. The condition for
allotment or criteria/eligibility for making application by
physically challenged persons stated at column No.2 reads as
follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB
• CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ¨É¯É CAUÀr £ÀqɸÀ®Ä PÀ¤µÀ× 2 wAUÀ¼À ¥ÀrvÀgÀ zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀܼÁªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀ §UÉÎ CxÀªÁ ¨ÁrUÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ
§UÉÎ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀĽUÉAiÀÄ C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ zÁR¯É ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. F ¸ÀܼÀªÀÅ
¥ÀrvÀgÀ aÃnzÁgÀjUÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÀܼÀªÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. (ªÀĽUÉ
¨sÁªÀavÀæ ¸À»vÀ ®UÀwÛ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ).
• ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄgÉA§ §UÉÎ gÀºÀªÁ¹ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ºÁdgÀ¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
12. It is not in dispute that both the petitioner as well
as respondent No.5 are physically challenged persons and they
would be entitled to make application under the category
'physically challenged'. However, respondent No.5 would not
fulfill the condition No.6 under Clause 2. Condition No.6 under
Clause 2 would state that the applicant shall be a resident of
particular village for which the allotment of Fair Price Shop is
called for and he shall produce the residential certificate.
Admittedly, respondent No.5 is a resident of Goraguddi village
and therefore, he would not be entitled for allotment of Fair
Price Shop in the village of Bolakadabi of Savadatti Taluk,
Belagavi District.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the petitioner also would not be entitled for allotment of Fair
Price Shop, since he would not possess the area or space
required for storing the food articles for two months. With
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB
regard to premises to run the fair price shop, Rule 5 of the
Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System)
Control Order, 2016 would be relevant. Rule 5(1)(b) would
state that one should be in possession of suitable business
premises with sufficient space to store all the essential
commodities and should have separate place for storing food
grains and kerosene.
14. The inspection report submitted by the concerned
Revenue Inspector produced along with memo dated 3.3.2025
filed by the learned counsel for the appellant indicates that the
premises obtained by respondent No.5 on lease is fit for
carrying on Fair Price Shop. In addition to the premises owned
by the petitioner, the petitioner has also undertaken that if Fair
Price Shop is allotted, he would take a place on rent, which is
recorded by the learned Single Judge.
15. Whether respondent No.5 possesses sufficient
premises at Bolakadabi village would not come to the aid of
respondent No.5, since he is not the resident of Bolakadabi
village. The petitioner is eligible for making application for
allotment of Fair Price Shop. Respondent No.5 would not have
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB
locus to question the allotment of Fair Price Shop in favour of
the petitioner.
16. The contention that the application of the petitioner
is defective and respondent No.3 ought not to have considered
the said application would not merit any consideration. We
have perused the application of the petitioner, which is placed
on record at Annexure-B. By mistake or inadvertence, the
petitioner has stated "Applicable" against column 'Karnataka
Food & Civil Supplies Corporation', but the application is by
individual (petitioner) and under the column 'Address & inner
dimensions', the petitioner has stated that "At Home Premises
at Bolakadabi", and the column against 'Business Premises', the
petitioner has stated "Home Premises", which would mean that
the application is by individual to carryout Fair Price Shop at
Home premises.
17. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error
or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly,
the appeal stands dismissed.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB
Pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not
surviving for consideration.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
JTR
