A writ petition was dismissed under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the cancellation of a PDS license. The court held that the petitioner failed to produce records for legally purchased and stored kerosene, and the authorities acted in accordance with the Control Order.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20T H DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
W.P.NO.106305/2015 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN :
BASAVARAJ S/O FAKKERSHETTY ROODAGI, AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O HANAMAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST; HAVERI.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NGANAGOUDA R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE.)
AND :
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VINAYAKA S.KULKARNI AGA.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS
2
COURT TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS NO.ANASA:PDS.PRA. VAHI-4/08-09 DATED 29.10.2014 AT ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE 2N D RESPONDENT AND ORDER NO.CFS:APPEAL: 135/2014-15 DATED 25.03.2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE 1S T RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING “B” GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
: ORDER :
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2014 vide Annexure-E passed by the 2nd respondent confirmed in the appeal by order dated 23.05.2015 vide Annexure-F passed by the 1st respondent, this writ petition is filed.
3
Essential Commodities Act and the licence was renewed from time to time.
4
appeal. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed this writ petition.
respondents-State.
5
petitioner has not produced any records in support of his contention. Hence, the petitioner has stored 970 liters of kerosene unauthorizedly without permission of the Authorities at Keremallapur village. The 2nd respondent after considering the contention and documents produced by the petitioner has rightly cancelled the licence issued to the petitioner. The 1st respondent-Appellate Authority after considering the material on record has rightly dismissed the appeal. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6
Keremallapur village. The petitioner has not produced any records to show that the said kerosene was purchased legally and it was stored authorizedly at Keremallapur village. The show cause notice was issued under clause 12 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) (Control) Order, 2016. Clause 12 of Order, 2016 deals with that, any authorized dealer or agency in contravention of condition of authorization, the authority shall issue a notice and called for reply from the said dealer or agency and thereafter the authority shall pass an order after hearing the authorized agency.
7
produced in support of his contention. The 2nd respondent after considering the material on record held that the petitioner has stored 970 liters kerosene unauthorisedly and a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for illegally storing kerosene accordingly the 2nd respondent by complying clause 12 of the Control Order 2016 after providing an opportunity to the petitioner has passed an order. The 1st respondent-Appellate Authority after considering the material on record has dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has not made out any grounds for interfering with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent and also by the 1st respondent. Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned orders accordingly writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
EM/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders canceling the licence and dismissing the appeal were passed without material or in violation of procedural safeguards.
Whether the High Court should interfere in the suo motu cancellation of the petitioner's PDS license.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
BASAVARAJ S/O FAKKERSHETTY ROODAGI
THE COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY & CONSUMER AFFAIRS, BENGALURU
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI
THE TAHASILDAR, RANEBENNUR
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, HAVERI
ASHOK S. KINAGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
