[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Milk Producers Co-Operative ... vs State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17256
WP No. 2825 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.2825 OF 2026 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
THE MILK PRODUCERS
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
KYADIGUNTE VILLAGE
SIDDESWARANA DURGA POST
PARUSHARAMPURA HOBLI
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577538
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI.PRASHANTHA D
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PUTTARAJA C P, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
CHAITHRA A
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location:
HIGH COURT REPRESENTED BY ITS
OF PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
GROUND FLOOR
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
CHITRA DURGA DISTRICT
CHITRA DURGA - 577501
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17256
WP No. 2825 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. THE THASILDAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHALLKERE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577538
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.AMARAVATHY H.R, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND NO.3 TO CONSIDER FOR ISSUANCE OF
LICENSE TO RUN THE FAIR PRICE DEPO AS ANNEXURE- F AND G,
FILED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY DATED
03.11.2025 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a direction
against respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue a license to run
Fair Shop Depot.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned AGA. Perused the records.
3. Respondent No.2 invited applications pursuant to
Government Order No.FPS/17/RPR2011(1), Bangalore
NC: 2026:KHC:17256
HC-KAR
dated 10.06.2016, as amended on 21.05.2018, for grant
of authorization to run a Fair Price Shop at Kyadigunte
Village, Parashurampura Hobli, Challakere Taluk,
Chitradurga District. The petitioner, along with five other
applicants, submitted applications in response to the said
notification.
4. Upon consideration and screening of the
applications, the competent Authority initially granted
authorization in favour of the petitioner. However, the said
authorization came to be cancelled subsequently, which
constrained the petitioner to approach this Court in
W.P.No.9029/2025. This Court, having found that the
cancellation was in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice, set aside the said order and directed the
Authorities to reconsider the matter with reference to
priority and pass appropriate orders.
5. The grievance of the petitioner in the present
petition is that, though pursuant to the order of this Court
NC: 2026:KHC:17256
HC-KAR
(Annexure-E), the Authorities have once again issued
authorization in favour of the petitioner, the consequential
license has not been issued till date. It is contended that
despite the matter attaining finality, respondent No.2 has
failed to complete the process by issuing the license,
thereby compelling the petitioner to once again approach
this Court.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on
instructions, fairly submits that the authorization has
already been issued in favour of the petitioner and that the
license would be issued in due course. The said submission
is placed on record.
7. This Court is of the considered view that once
authorization is granted, the Authorities are under a
statutory obligation to complete the process by issuing the
license within a reasonable time. Any inaction or delay on
the part of the Authorities, particularly after issuance of
NC: 2026:KHC:17256
HC-KAR
authorization and in the face of a prior order of this Court,
cannot be countenanced.
8. It is trite that statutory authorities entrusted with
public duties are expected to act with promptitude and
diligence. Any display of administrative lethargy or
inaction defeats the very purpose of welfare schemes and
compels citizens to approach this Court seeking a writ of
mandamus. Such an approach is impermissible.
9. In the present case on hand, the petitioner is
before this Court for the second time. Despite a clear
direction issued by this Court in the earlier round of
litigation, respondent No.2 has failed to carry the matter
to its logical conclusion by issuing the license. This
continued inaction reflects a lack of administrative
responsibility and is wholly unjustified.
10. This Court is therefore constrained to observe
that such repeated lapses on the part of the Authorities
compel litigants to engage in avoidable rounds of
NC: 2026:KHC:17256
HC-KAR
litigation, resulting in wastage of judicial time and undue
hardship to the parties. Authorities are expected to act in
aid of judicial orders and not render them otiose by
adopting a lackadaisical approach.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to forthwith
issue the license to the petitioner to run
the Fair Price Shop at Kyadigunte Village,
in terms of the authorization already
granted as per Annexures-F and G.
(iii) The said exercise shall be completed
within a period of four (4) weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
(iv) It is made clear that any further delay or
non-compliance shall be viewed
seriously.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
