Allowed

Smt.Khairun Bee W/O Late P. Saddam Husain v. the Joint Director

Karnataka HC29 Jun 2021WP/102283/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the rejection of her request to transfer her deceased husband's Fair Price Shop authorization. The Court held that the transfer must be governed by the 1992 Order under which the original authorization was issued, not the new 2016 Order with stricter educational requirements.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting transfer was quashed; Respondent directed to reconsider application within two months.

Smt.Khairun Bee W/O Late P. Saddam Husain Vs the Joint… — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.102283/2021 (GM-PDS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.KHAIRUN BEE W/O LATE P. SADDAM HUSAIN AGE ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC NIL, R/O LAKSHIMIPUR, TQ KURUGODA, NEW TALUKA, DIST BALLARI, PIN CODE 583113.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri. RAJASHEKHAR B HALLI, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI, PIN CODE 583101..

¶13

2 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI, PIN CODE 583101.

¶14

3 . THE TAHASILDAR, KURAGODA TQ KURAGODA, DIST BALLARI, PIN CODE 583231.

¶15

…..Respondents

¶16

(By Sri.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT/ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 10/06/2021, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the endorsement dated 10.06.2021 issued by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-F whereby the 1^st respondent rejected the petitioner’s request for transfer of authorization.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that, the Competent Authority has issued authorization in favour of the petitioner’s husband under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (for short, ‘PDS Control Order, 1992’) on 08.03.2016.

¶23

The petitioner’s husband died on 02.12.2020. To that effect, she has produced the death certificate as per Annexure-B. Thereafter the petitioner has filed an application for transfer of authorization in her favour. The

¶24

¶25

same has been rejected vide Annexure-F stating that she has not completed 10^th standard as required under Clause 13 of Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for short, ‘PDS Control Order, 2016). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

Sri. Rajashekhar B Halli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the authorization at Annexure-A has been issued in favour of the petitioner’s husband under the PDS Control Order, 1992 on 08.03.2016. He died on 02.12.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for transfer of authorization as per Clause 13 of the PDS Control Order, 1992. The Authority may transfer the authorization in favour of the petitioner as there was no qualification prescribed under Clause 13 of the PDS Control Order, 1992. Contrary to the same, the impugned order Annexure-F has been passed. In support of his contention, he has relied on the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.105404/2018 produced vide Annexure-H.

¶27

¶28

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government

¶29

Advocate appearing for the State has contended that as per

¶30

Clause 13 of the PDS Control Order, 2016 to transfer the authorization in favour of the petitioner, she has to complete 10^th standard. Since the petitioner has not produced any document to establish the same, the Authority has rejected her claim.

¶31

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers.

¶32

6. It is not in dispute that the Government has issued authorization for running Fair Price Shop in favour of the petitioner’s husband on 08.03.2016 under the PDS Control Order, 1992 vide Annexure-A. The petitioner’s husband died on 02.12.2020. The petitioner has filed an application for transfer of authorization under Clause 13 of the PDS Control Order, 1992. Under Clause 13 of the PDS Control Order, 1992, while transferring the authorization on compassionate grounds on the death of the holder of authorization to his spouse, son or unmarried daughter, applying age restrictions should be arbitrary as it would

¶33

¶34

defeat the object of transferring the authorization on compassionate grounds.

¶35

It is very clear from the above provision that no educational qualification is prescribed for the transfer of authorization. Only under the PDS Control Order, 2016, the qualification for transferring authorization of the Fair Price Shop has been prescribed where one should have passed 10^th standard. Since the authorization of the petitioner’s husband has been issued under the PDS Control Order, 1992, petitioner’s request for authorization is to be considered under the PDS Control Order, 1992. This issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8586/2006 disposed of on 21.11.2008. In similar circumstance, this Court in W.P.No.105404/2018 disposed of on 04.12.2018 has passed an order holding that the provisions that were prevailing when the original authorization was granted has to be made applicable and not the new provisions that have come about subsequent to the issuance of authorization.

¶36

¶37

In view of the above, the endorsement issued by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-F is contrary to the provision of the PDS Control Order, 1992. Hence, it is liable to be quashed.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure-F is quashed. The 1^st Respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above, not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶39

Kgk

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

Smt.Khairun Bee W/O Late P. Saddam Husain v. the Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Khairun Bee W/O Late P. Saddam Husain v. the Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nissar S/O Jafarsab @ Mohammed Jafar Vs Farukh S/O Jafarsab @ Mohammed Killedar @ Mulla

Sri. Bharamappa S/O Late Gowiera Revanna Vs Smt. Eramma W/O Late Somappa

M/S.Shreya Briquetting Bio Energy Vs the Hukkeri Rural Electrical

Smt.Vijayalaxmi W/O Murugarajendra Mirji Vs Shri.Murugarajendra S/O Gurupadappa Mirji

Sri.Vijayakumar Hemareddi Hallikeri Vs the State of Karnataka

G.Prem Charles S/O. G. Joseph Raju Vs the State of Karnataka