Allowed

Sri. M K Jayaramaiah v. Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2021WP/1277/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted a writ of certiorari quashing impugned orders that unilaterally diverted a petitioner's ration cards to other depots. The court held that such prejudicial actions violated the principles of natural justice under Article 14. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration with the petitioner's participation.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders dated 14.01.2016 and 03.09.2015. Matter remitted for fresh consideration with the petitioner's participation.

Sri. M K Jayaramaiah Vs Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1277 OF 2019 (GM-PDS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M K JAYARAMAIAH, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT MAGONDI VILLAGE AND POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 575 511. SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. HITESH D, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDHARTH B MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR – 563 101.

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT , KOLAR TALUK,

¶15

KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101.

¶16

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101.

¶18

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VSSN ALAMBADI , BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VINODKUMAR M, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R5; SRI. B J SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE MEMORANDUM DATED 14.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-5 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-A) AND ALL ACTIONS PURSUANT THERETO AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2015 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-B) ISSUED BY R-3 AND ALL ACTIONS PURSUANT THERETO.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is against diversion of a set of Ration Cards to some other Fair Price Depots from petitioner’s vide impugned order dated 14.01.2016 ie., preceeded by another order dated 03.09.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that this prejudicial act could not have been done without an opportunity of hearing to his client in the absence of compliance with the conditions which para 11 of PDS Control Order 2016 prescribes.

¶25

¶26

After service of notice, the official respondents having entered appearance through the learned HCGP opposes the writ petition contending that the PDS Control Order is structured for serving the public interest at large and that the individual interest of the Depot owner has to yield to the same; that being the position, regardless of the arguable infractions of some provisions of PDS Control Order, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked; so contending he seeks dismissal of writ petition.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶28

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the impugned orders by their very nature & effect are prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner who had earlier been given certain number of Ration Cards and the said number is now unilaterally reduced.

¶29

There is force in the argument of learned counsel

¶30

for the petitioner that prejudicial orders of the kind would not have been made in violation of principles of natural justice which are held to be a part of Article 14 of the Constitution of

¶31

¶32

India, by the Apex Court of the country in a catena of decisions.

¶33

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders; matter is remitted for consideration afresh in accordance with law, of course, with the participation of the petitioner.

¶34

All contentions are kept open.

¶35

No costs.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Snb/

Sri. M K Jayaramaiah v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M K Jayaramaiah v. Government of Karnataka

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

Mr.Ananda K Vs the District Collector

M/S Gati Ltd. Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Smt.Sunanda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Umadevi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K R Thippeswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Vikas S/O Surendranath R S Vs State of Karnataka