Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Javeed Iqbal vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9603
WP No. 20304 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 20304 OF 2024 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED JAVEED IQBAL
S/O LATE AMEENULLA
AGED 40 YEARS
RESIDENT OF MASJID ROAD,
BIBIJAN LAYOUT,
GUBBI GATE, TUMAKURU - 572 106.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES,
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND
Location: High LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT,
Court of
Karnataka M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9603
WP No. 20304 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT DTD. 08.07.2024 BEARING NO.
FSD/FPD/CR/132/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR
(FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS) TUMAKURU
DISTRICT, TUMAKURU VIDE ANNX-D BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI; ii) DIRECT THE R-2 TO ISSUE AUTHORIZATION /
LICENSE IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE
GROUNDS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES
TO THE CARD HOLDERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an
endorsement dated 08.07.2024, by which, the application of
the petitioner seeking transfer of authorization on
compassionate grounds comes to be rejected.
2. Heard Sri. M.B. Chandrachooda, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. H.K.Kenchegowda, learned
NC: 2025:KHC:9603
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
and have perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel, Sri. M.B. Chandrachooda,
appearing for the petitioner would submit that the endorsement
comes about on the ground that the age of the father was
above 65 years at the time when he died and therefore, the
authorization cannot be transferred. This is held to be contrary
to law, by the judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this
Court in W.P.No.17048/2021 disposed on 20.09.2021, wherein
it 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 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
NC: 2025:KHC:9603
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 a 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. In the light of the fact that the issue in the lis
stands covered by the order passed by the coordinate bench of
this Court supra, which is not disputed by the learned
Additional Government Advocate, I deem it appropriate to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The endorsement dated 08.07.2024 stands
quashed.
NC: 2025:KHC:9603
iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the
application of the petitioner, bearing in mind
the observations in the course of the order
within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, if not already allotted to
anyone else.
SD/-
____________________
JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
BKP
