Allowed

Sri. Shivaraj T. S/O Late Laxmireddy T. v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2023WP/100204/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by a fair price shop dealer seeking quashing of rejection of license renewal. The court set aside the endorsement rejecting the application based on an expired three-year period under one notification, directing remand for reconsideration under the 2021 amendment allowing 10-year renewals.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement was set aside, and the matter remitted to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration of the renewal application within three months.

Sri. Shivaraj T. S/O Late Laxmireddy T. Vs the… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100204 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100204 OF 2023 (GM-PDS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SHIVARAJ T. S/O. LATE LAXMIREDDY T., AGE 43 YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O DAWLATPUR VILLAGE, TQ. SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI 58311.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI M.S.HARAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, FOOD, CIVIL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU 560027.

¶14

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, FOOD, CIVIL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶16

BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583101.

¶17

THE TAHASILDAR SANDUR, TQ. SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI 583201.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI PRASHANT V.MOGALI, HCGP FOR RESP.NOS.1 TO 3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO, AANAS6/NYA.BE.AM/ ANU/64/2018-19 DATED 28.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS

¶21

¶22

WP No. 100204 of 2023

¶23

DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RENEW THE AUTHORIZATION NO, 72/2019-20 OF THE PETITIONER AS REQUIRED UNDER THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 16.01.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the

¶27

following reliefs:

¶28

“1. ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO, AANAS6/NYA.BE.AM/ANU/64/2018-19 DATED 28.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-F.

¶29

2. ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RENEW THE AUTHORIZATION NO, 72/2019-20 OF THE PETITIONER AS REQUIRED UNDER THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 16.01.2021 VIDE

¶30

ANNEXURE-C. ”

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the material on record.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 100204 of 2023

¶34

3. The material on record discloses that the

¶35

application dated 23.12.2022 submitted by the petitioner for renewal of licence for running of a fair price shop has been rejected on the sole ground that as per Clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) (Amendment) Order, 2017, renewal can be only for a maximum period of three years which has expired on 06.12.2022 since the original authorization was granted in his favour on 06.12.2019. In this context, it is relevant to state that respondent No.2 has failed to consider and appreciate the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) (Amendment) Order, 2021 which came into force on 16.01.2021, which contemplates that the renewal can be for a period of 10 years as can be seen from the Clause 13 of the Amendment Act.

¶36

Under these circumstances, I am of the view that

¶37

the impugned endorsement deserves to be set aside and

¶38

¶39

WP No. 100204 of 2023

¶40

the matter remitted back for reconsideration afresh in

¶41

accordance with law.

¶42

In the result, I pass the following :

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶45

(ii) The impugned endorsement at Annexure-F dated 28.12.2022 is hereby set aside.

¶46

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 2^nd respondent for reconsideration of the renewal application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law bearing in mind the Amendment Act, 2021 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

CKK

Sri. Shivaraj T. S/O Late Laxmireddy T. v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shivaraj T. S/O Late Laxmireddy T. v. the Commissioner

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

Bharatkumar S/O Indurao Rangole Vs Sharadkumar S/O Indurao Rangole

Dr. Tatasaheb Pawadeppa Bangi, Vs Sri Chamaraj Pawadeppa Bangi

Shri Harishganta S/O Sathyanarayan G Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ashok S/O Santappa Satyannavar Vs Afzal S/O Nurahammad Parthanahalli

Sri. G. Tippeswamy S/O Late G Kotrappa Vs the Commissioner

Narasimha S/O Vishveshwar Gaonkar Vs the State of Karnataka