Karnataka High Court
Ashok S/O Ramappa Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7238
WP No. 103360 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.103360 OF 2025 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S/O RAMAPPA PATIL
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HALLE MAASTIHOLI VILALGE,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOODWALA SADIQALI NAZEER, 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
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
MOHANKUMAR Location: High
Court of
FOOD, CIVIL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT.,
B SHELAR
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
Date:
2025.06.05
15:08:38 +0530
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU-32.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
FOOD, CIVIL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT.,
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590017.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
DATED 25.04.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 NO.
APUVI/NIYABEAM/VINIDHI-50/2024-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-C & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7238
WP No. 103360 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents.
2. Learned AGA fairly concedes that issue involved
in the captioned petition is squarely covered by catena of
judgments rendered by this court.
3. This captioned petition is filed assailing the
endorsement dated 25.04.2025 issued by respondent No.3
as per Annexure-C.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned AGA for the respondents.
5. Petitioner's father was the original licence
holder in whose name the respondent-authorities have
issued licence to run the fair price shop, which was
renewed from time to time. Petitioner has furnished a copy
of the licence which is evidenced at Annexure-A.
Petitioner's father expired on 28.06.2024 and petitioner
being the Class-I heir submitted a representation seeking
transfer of licence of fair price shop on compassionate
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7238
ground. The said representation is dealt and rejected by
respondent No.3 on the premise that petitioner's father
was aged above 65 years and therefore, there is no
provision to transfer the licence of fair price shop on
compassionate ground.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has furnished
copy of the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of
this court which has dealt with this issue in an identical
case.
7. Upon a careful examination of the findings
recorded by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a
factually and legally identical matter in W.P. No.
107010/2024, this Court finds that the impugned
endorsement issued by the competent authority is legally
unsustainable and runs contrary to the express provisions
of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing
Order, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing
Order, 1986) as well as the Karnataka Essential
Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7238
Order, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order,
1992).
8. The Licensing Order, 1986, which governs the
grant, renewal, suspension, cancellation, and transfer of
licenses for the distribution of essential commodities, does
not prescribe the age of the original license holder as a
disqualifying criterion for the transfer of license. The
Licensing Order, mandates that any request for transfer
shall be considered on merits, subject to satisfaction of
eligibility criteria, and shall not be rejected merely on the
basis of the age of the license holder or applicant.
9. Similarly, the Control Order, 1992, framed
under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, lays down the
responsibilities and obligations of fair price shop dealers
and the criteria for the selection and continuation of such
dealers. Clause 5 of the Control Order provides for the
eligibility for appointment of fair price shop dealers and
clearly envisages the right of legal heirs to seek transfer of
dealership subject to compliance with prescribed
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7238
conditions. It does not contemplate arbitrary denial on
irrelevant considerations such as the advanced age of the
deceased license holder.
10. In a catena of decisions, this Court has
consistently held that the age of the original license holder
cannot be treated as a determinative factor while
considering the application for transfer of a fair price shop
license in favour of a Class-I legal heir, provided the heir
fulfills the other eligibility requirements laid down under
law.
11. Therefore, in the present case, the
endorsement issued by the respondent authority, which
rejects the request for transfer solely or primarily on the
ground of the original license holder's age, is ex facie
contrary to the Licensing Order, 1986 and the Control
Order, 1992. It is therefore liable to be quashed as being
arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
12. For the forgoing reasons, this court passes the
following;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7238
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsement dated 25.04.2025
as per Annexure-C is hereby quashed.
iii) The writ of mandamus is issued directing
respondent No.3 to transfer the licence of the
fair price shop in favour of the petitioner within
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
MBS, CT:VP
