Allowed

K.Sridhar v. the Deputy Commissioner (Food)

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2021WP/11271/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that administrative orders transferring ration cards from fair price shops lacked application of mind and violated natural justice. The bench quashed the orders for failing to provide notice or a hearing to the authorized dealers.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A3, subsequent orders dated 17.10.2016, and Annexures-B, C, C1, and C2 dated 29.11.2016, and the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority were set aside and quashed.

K.Sridhar Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Food) — Karnataka HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 11271 OF 2017 (GM-EC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K.SRIDHAR S/O.KRISHNAIAH SHETTY M.V AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT 5^TH CROSS ROAD ROBERTSONPET K.G.F, BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT

¶9

THE SECRETARY K.V.RAJANNA BHARATH CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ROBERTSONPET K.G.F, BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 122

¶10

THE SECRETARY SMT.SATHYALAKSHMI DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR SC/ST WOMEN’S MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ROBERTSONPET K.G.F, BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 122

¶11

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHIVARAMU H.C, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 122

¶14

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, K.G.F, BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 122

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING, 5^TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.SAVITHA T.H, HCGP FOR R-1TO R-4)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.09.2016 PASSED BY R-4 IN ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A3 AND ALSO THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED ON BEHALF OF THE R-1 DATED 17.10.2016 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 AR ANNEXURE-B AND C AND ALSO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 23.02.2017 PASSED BY R-3 IN APPEAL NO.CFS/APPEAL/109/2016-17,110/2016-17 AND 112/2016-17 AT ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners were issued with the license under the provisions of Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order 1986 to distribute food grains and kerosene oil. The said license was renewed from time to time. Petitioner No.1 is the individual and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Associations Registered under the Karnataka CoOperative Societies Act, 1959. Petitioner No.2 was, in fact, issued license in the year 1987 by virtue of the order dated 11.12.1987 and that authorization came to be issued after coming into force KEC (PDS) Control Order, 1992. Total number of cards issued to each of these petitioners was 140 BPL Cards to petitioner No.1, 140 BPL Cards to petitioner No.2 and 101 BPL Cards to petitioner No.3. Petitioners were carrying on with the distribution of commodities without any complaint from any of the card holders to Department. Petitioners have also not violated any of the conditions stipulated by the Authorities.

¶26

¶27

This being the state of affair, respondent No.4 issued an order on 22.09.2016 vide Annexure-A3 to take steps to move the ration cards of particular depot, which is having less than150 cards on the ground that holding of less number of ration cards is economically unviable.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the order at Annexure-A3 dated 22.09.2016 came to be issued without any notice to the petitioners. In pursuance thereof the respondents removed the ration cards not only from the petitioners’ shops but also from the fair price depots of others, which is having less than 150 ration cards, though there were no complaints by any of the card holders or registered card holders or any violation committed by the authorized dealers like petitioners herein.

¶29

Learned counsel further contends that in the absence of any card holder giving complaint to the authorities of the respondents herein against the authorized dealers or there being any inconvenience

¶30

¶31

caused to them of being provided any commodities from the shops, the order passed is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

¶32

Based on the orders passed by respondent No.4, respondent No.1 issued Official Memorandum dated 17.10.2016 to remove the ration card from the shops of the petitioners and transferred to authorized dealers of another fair price depot, which is illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

Learned counsel further contends that the issuance of Annexures-C, C1 and C2 by the respondent No.1 is violative of principles of natural justice and there is no reason specified for withdrawal of the ration cards, which was issued to the authorized dealers, petitioners herein. Therefore, he contends that principally the said order is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed. On these grounds the learned counsel for petitioners prays to allow the present writ petition.

¶34

Per contra, learned HcGP appearing on behalf of respondents supports the order impugned and

¶35

¶36

submits that withdrawal of the ration card would be made in view of the betterment of the ration card holders and in the well being, of their interest and also to facilitate the ration card holders to travel lesser distance to fair price depot.

¶37

On careful perusal of the KEC (PDS) Control Order, 1992 and 2016, it is seen that as per Rule 4, the application for authorized dealer is prescribed and condition of the eligibility is prescribed under Rule 5. Contravention of condition prescribed under Rule 12, which specifically states that if there is any contravention to the authorization provided, the Authority shall enquire into the matter and pass the order for suspension and cancellation of fair price shop, within the time specified therein.

¶38

In the present case, the petitioners have been running fair price depot since the year 1986 and 1989. Issuance of Annexure-A3 by the respondent No.4 is for the reasons which is prescribed under Clause 11 of the KECPD (Control) Order, 2016. The authorities can

¶39

¶40

move cards from economically unviable shops and if the number of cards falls to 75% of the prescribed number, then the Authorized Authority may move the cards by interpreting that the shops have become financial unviable.

¶41

Based on the said order of the Government

¶42

issued by the respondent No.4 the Official Memorandum came to be issued vide Annexure-C, C1 and C2, which is issued by the respondent No.1. It is noticed that the Official Memorandum, which is issued at Annexure-C, C1 and C2 no notice or opportunity has been given to the petitioners herein, who are fair price depot authorized dealers. It is ordered for transfer and move of ration cards specified therein from the petitioners depot. Hence, it is seen that issuance of this order by the respondent No.1 is without following due process of law and issuance of any notice, which is in violation of the basic principles of natural justice.

¶43

Under the circumstances, on the face of the record it appears that no notice or opportunity has been

¶44

¶45

provided to the petitioners while passing the impugned orders. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioners approached and filed writ petition, which is provided under Annexure-D, D1 and D2, in which an interim order was passed and thereafter the said writ petition was disposed of directing to file an appeal. Accordingly, petitioners filed appeals before the Commissioner for Food and Civil Supplies at Bangalore as per AnnexuresE, E1 and E2. After hearing the parties the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2017 relaying upon the very same Government Order as per Annexure-3 dated 22.09.2016. After having gone through the entire materials on record and statements of the learned counsel for petitioners and respondent, it is seen that while issuing Annexure-C, C1 and C2, the respondent No.1 has issued Annexure-3 dated 22.09.2016 without application of mind and issued notice transferring the ration card from petitioners’ fair price depot.

¶46

In view of the submission and for the aforesaid reasons stated, I am of the considered opinion

¶47

¶48

that the respondents have not followed the principles of natural justice to provide an opportunity of hearing and issue notice to them before passing any order against them. Therefore, Annexure-A3 dated 22.09.2016 and consequent orders passed by respondent No.1 dated 17.10.2006 as per Annexure-B insofar as petitioners herein are concerned at Sl. No.1, 6 and 7 and Anenxures-B and C, C1 and C2 dated 29.11.2016 issued against the petitioners deserves to be set aside and quashed. Accordingly it is set aside and quashed. The appeal thereafter filed before the Appellate Authority as per Annexure-F also deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and writ petition is disposed of.

¶49

It is needless to mention that the respondents are at liberty to initiate any, action by following due process of law by giving fresh notice and fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

K.Sridhar v. the Deputy Commissioner (Food)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sridhar v. the Deputy Commissioner (Food)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. D.K. Krishna Raju Vs General Manager

Mohammed Haneef Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Sri Surendran Thampi Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas

Press Trust of Sagar(R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sangappa @ Sangemesh Vs the Karnataka Lokayukta

Suresh Gowda Vs the Chief Information Commissioner