Allowed

Yuvak Mandala Lukkeri v. the Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2021WP/147644/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed this writ petition and quashed a 2020 notification calling for fresh applications for Fair Price Shop authorization. The court held that since the petitioner's authorization was renewed after the interim order, the impugned notification became unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The notification dated 30.06.2020 vide Annexure-B calling for allotment of authorization to run Fair Price Shop of Lukkeri village is quashed.

Yuvak Mandala Lukkeri Vs the Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.147644/2020 (GM-EC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

YUVAK MANDALA LUKKERI REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, PRABHAKARA S/O DATTA GOUDA, AGE : 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O LUKKERI, TAQ: KUMTA, DIST: KARWAR-581330.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI S.V.YAJI, ADV.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, M.G.ROAD, KARWAR-581301.

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR KUMTA, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: KARWAR-581343.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT NO.U.NI./AAHAARA/HONYABE/2020-21/40 VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

: ORDER :

¶20

This writ petition is directed against the notification dated 30.06.2020 issued by the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure-B calling applications for allotment of Fair Price Shop of Lukkeri village in Kumta Taluk, Uttara Kannada District.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is a society registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is running a Fair Price Shop since 1990 by obtaining authorization from the concerned authority without any objections from the public or the cardholders.

¶22

The authorization issued in favour of the petitioner-Society had expired on 31.12.2019. In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner was unable to renew the authorization. Even then the respondents have supplied the

¶23

¶24

food grains to the petitioner-Society for

¶25

distribution to the cardholders till June, 2020.

¶26

Thereafter on 30.06.2020, the 2^nd

¶27

respondent has issued a notification calling applications for allotment of authorization to run Fair Price Shop of Lukkeri village as per Annexure-B. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner-Society has approached this Court.

¶28

Sri S.V.Yaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Society submits that, the impugned notification vide Annexure-B has been issued during COVID-19 pandemic. The authorization issued earlier in favour of the petitioner expired on 31.12.2019. In view of the pandemic, the petitioner-society was unable to get renew its authorization. In-spite of that, the respondents have supplied the food grains to the Fair Price Shop and accordingly the petitionersociety distributed the same to the cardholders. He further contended that, since 1990 the

¶29

¶30

petitioner-society is running Fair Price Shop without any objections from the public and the cardholders. Therefore, Annexure-B issued by the 2^nd respondent is unsustainable. He further contended that, this Court by order dated 22.10.2020 has granted an interim order staying the impugned notification vide Annexure-B and directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of its authorization. Accordingly, the respondents have renewed the authorization of the petitioner. Since the respondents have renewed the authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop of the petitioner-society, notification vide Annexure-B calling applications for allotment of authorization does not survive for consideration and hence he sought to allow the writ petition.

¶31

Per contra , Sri Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State

¶32

¶33

has contended that, the authorization issued in favour of the petitioner-society had expired on 31.12.2019. In-spite of issuance of notice by the authority asking the petitioner-society to renew the authorization, it has not renewed the same. Hence, there being no other alternative, respondents have issued notification vide Annexure-B calling applications for allotment of authorization as per the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control (Amendment) Order 2018 (“Control Order” for short). Hence, there is no illegality in issuing the notification vide Annexure-B. He further contended that pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of authorization has been considered and the authorization has been renewed.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

It is not in dispute that, the petitioner-

¶37

society was holding authorization for running

¶38

Fair Price Shop in respect of Shop No.516 of Lakkuri village in Kumta Taluk since from 1990. The authorization issued in favour of the petitioner-society expired on 31.12.2019. Since it has not renewed the authorization, the 2^nd respondent has issued notification vide Annexure-B under Control Order 2018 inviting applications for allotment of authorization of the Fair Price Shop.

¶39

This Court by interim order dated 22.10.2020 has stayed the notification at Annexure-B and directed the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner-society for renewal of authorization. Pursuant to the same, the respondents have renewed the authorization of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop. Annexure-B has been issued only on the ground that, the petitioner

¶40

¶41

has not renewed its authorization. Now the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop has been renewed. Hence, notification vide Annexure-B calling applications for allotment of Fair Price Shop is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is

¶43

allowed. The notification dated 30.06.2020 vide Annexure-B is quashed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Yuvak Mandala Lukkeri v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvak Mandala Lukkeri v. the 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

Mallappaganiger Vs the State of Karnataka

Subbana Gouda S/O Kumara Gouda Vs Kottagi Siddalingappa S/O Malappa

The Asst. Executive Engineer, Vs the State of Karnataka

Erappa S/O Durgappa Bilagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi S/O Dheerendrarao Deshpande Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Ravi S/O Dheerendrarao Deshpande Vs the Deputy Commissioner