Quashed

Vithal S/O Late Eshwarappa Arer v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2021WP/104308/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting a Public Distribution System license transfer due to the deceased father's age exceeding 65 years. The Court held that the age limit is directory, not mandatory, relying on prior precedents.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned endorsement/order dated 13.10.2021; directed respondents to reconsider the application within four weeks.

Vithal S/O Late Eshwarappa Arer Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.104308/2021 (GM-PDS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VITHAL S/O. LATE ESHWARAPPA ARER, AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN CODE : 583232

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R.B.HALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALURU-560001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN CODE : 583232.

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFIARS DEPARTMENT KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL.

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR, YELBURGA, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN CODE : 583231

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

(SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT/ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 13/10/2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Learned HCGP accepts notice for the respondents.

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned endorsement/order passed by the respondent No.3 No.Sankya;ANaSa:NyaBe:Aum:23-202122, dated 13.10.2021 produced at Annexure-E.

¶25

(ii) Issue any other writ or direction or order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶26

The petitioner’s father was running a fair price shop and was a authorized licensee under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992, as amended subsequently. The petitioner’s father died due to COVID-19 on 07.07.2021. Hence, the petitioner who is aged about

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

34 years had filed an application for transfer of licence in his name along with no objection of the other family members.

¶29

The said application came to be rejected by respondent No.3 on the ground that, the petitioner’s father was 74 years at the time of his death. The Control order requiring that the deceased should be less than 65 years as on the date of his death to enable transfer of license on compassionate ground. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is seeking for the aforesaid relief.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. R.B.Halli, would submit that, the requirement of Clause 13 of the Control Order, 2016 has been held by this Court to be directory and not mandatory in several decisions and as such, the reliance placed by the respondent No.3 on the age of the father of the petitioner being more than 65 years is not sustainable, the petitioner has no other occasion and as such, the licence is required to

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

be transferred to the petitioner on compassionate ground. This Court in W.P.No.105404/2018, W.P.No.11239/2019 and W.P.No.148387/2021 and in several other matters has held that, Clause 13 is directory.

¶33

In view thereof, the age of the father of the petitioner being immaterial the reason attributed by the respondent No.3, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner is not sustainable and as such, the endorsement order passed by respondent No.3 dated 03.10.2021 at Annexure-E is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, as per the observations made above and as per the aforesaid decisions referred to within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶34

*Svh/-

Vithal S/O Late Eshwarappa Arer v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vithal S/O Late Eshwarappa Arer v. the State of Karnataka

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

Pankaj Kaushik Vs Pushpa Pankaj Kaushik

G Bheemanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Raghavendra S/O. Sudhindra Hirenarti Vs Hubli Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

R K Recreation and Sports Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Basamma W/O Late Basappa M.D Vs Talakal Mallappa S/O Siddappa

Shahzad Begum Urf Rahamankhatib W/O. Mustaqkhan Biradar Vs Dilerkhan S/O. Abdulkarimkhan Biradar