Writ petition challenging an order removing a village from the petitioner's food grain distribution authorization. Court held the communication lacking competent authority orders and directed the Tahsildar to refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner.
Direction to the Tahsildar to address communication to the Deputy Commissioner and preserve status quo.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.35542/2013 (GM-PDS)
Between:
Sri N Ramaswamy S/o Narayanaswamy Aged about 48 years R/o Ananthapura Village Yelahanka Hobli Bangalore North Taluk Bangalore – 560 064 … Petitioner
(By Sri K Varaprasad, Adv.)
And :
Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk Yelahanka – 560 064 Bangalore.
(By Sri E.S. Indiresh, HCGP. For R1, R2-Served)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the order dated 29.07.2013 passed by the R1 vide Annx-D.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in 'B' group, this day, the Court made the following :
2
O R D E R
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the
order dated 29.07.2013 impugned at Annexure-D to the petition.
3
the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution
System) Control Order, 1992. In that circumstance, the petitioner is aggrieved by the communication issued by the Tahsildar to the second respondent to take over distribution to certain of the card holders which have been assigned to the petitioner.
the Authorised Authority is clear from the definition at Order 2(d) under the said Control Order 1992 referred to above. Admittedly, the communication at Annexure-D addressed by the Tahsildar to the second respondent does not indicate any reference to the orders, if any, that had been passed by the Authorised Authority. Therefore, it appears as if the same is only a communication addressed by the Tahsildar to the second respondent without being backed by any orders by the Competent Authority. Hence, at this juncture, the same in any event cannot be considered as an order. The reasons put forth in the said communication in any event would have to be placed by the first respondent herein before the Authorised Authority as the recommendation of the Tahsildar seeking
4
for necessary orders in that regard. The Authorised Authority on considering the same and on providing opportunity to the petitioner may arrive at its own conclusion based on the fact situation.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
hrp/bms
Sd/JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is empowered to distribute food grains in an area now within Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike jurisdiction.
Whether the Tahsildar has the authority to modify the petitioner's authorization without orders from the Competent Authority.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri N Ramaswamy
The Tahsildar Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk Yelahanka
The Raitha Seva Sahakara Sangha Ltd.
A S BOPANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
