Allowed

Smt Swapna W/O Ganesh Kadaramandalagi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2023WP/100492/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order rejecting a widow's application to transfer a fair price shop licence to her name on compassionate grounds. The Court held that she succeeds her deceased husband and ordered transfer within three months.

What did the court decide?

To consider the application and transfer the fair price shop authorization to the petitioner within three months.

Smt Swapna W/O Ganesh Kadaramandalagi Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100492 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100492/2023 (GM-PDS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT SWAPNA W/O GANESH KADARAMANDALAGI, AGE : 40 YEARS, OCC.: FAIR PRICE SHOP, R/O: HOSA NAGAR, NEAR REMAND HOME, RANEBENNUR, TQ.: RANEBENNUR, DIST HAVERI 581115.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, AND LEGAL METRLOGY DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU -01.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD), HAVERI 581110.

¶14

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

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (FOOD), DEPT FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY, HAVERI 581110.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, RANEBENNUR, TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST HAVERI 581115.

¶17

RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 30.12.2022 IN NO.UNI(HA)AANASA.VAHI-74/2022-23 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E & ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

WP No. 100492 of 2023

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-E dated 30.12.2022 whereby the application filed by the petitioner to transfer the licence / authorization to run a fair price shop to her name was rejected by the respondents.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record including the impugned order.

¶26

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that request of the petitioner’s husband-Ganesh to transfer the licence/ authorization from the name of his father to his name was rejected vide order dated 26.07.2022 aggrieved by which the petitioner’s husband-Ganesh approached this Court in W.P. No. 104876/2022 which was disposed of on 10.11.2022 holding that rejection of the request on the ground that the father of the said Ganesh was aged more than 65 years, was illegal and improper and consequently this Court directed the respondents to reconsider the application of the aforesaid Ganesh, petitioner’s husband for transfer of authorization/ licence on compassionate

¶27

¶28

WP No. 100492 of 2023

¶29

ground without reference to the age of his father, the deceased authorization holder, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶30

The material on record further indicates that the said directions issued by this court in W.P. No. 104876/2022 could not be complied with by the respondents in view of the demise of the petitioner’s husband Ganesh, on 18.11.2022 pursuant to which the petitioner filed an application seeking transfer of the authorization to her name on compassionate grounds. The said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.3 vide impugned endorsement dated 30.12.2022 vide Annexure-E which is assailed in this writ petition.

¶31

Insofar as the first reason assigned in the impugned endorsement at Annexure-E dated 30.12.2022 by the respondent No.3 that the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No. 104876/2022 dated 10.11.2022 was only in favour of her husband and not the petitioner is concerned, in light of the undisputed fact that the petitioner’s husband Ganesh expired on 18.11.2022 before his application was considered as directed by this court, the petitioner would step into the shoes of her husband and would be

¶32

¶33

WP No. 100492 of 2023

¶34

entitled to seek transfer of the authorization/ licence to her name on compassionate grounds and consequently the said reason assigned by the respondent No.3 deserves to be set aside.

¶35

Insofar as the second reason assigned in the impugned endorsement that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of age criteria is concerned, the said reason is also incorrect and illegal since the same is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Haveri & another (W.P. No. 104301/2018); (Shri Nagaraj Vs. The State of Karnataka & others (W.P. No. 100405/2021); and Shivasharanappa Vs. The State of Karnataka & Others (W.P. No. 204335/2014). Under the circumstances, even the second reason assigned by the respondent No.3 in the impugned endorsement deserves to be set aside.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned endorsement at Annexure-E issued by the respondent No.3 rejecting application of the petitioner deserves to be set aside and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents in this regard.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 100492 of 2023

¶39

In the result, I pass the following order.

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) Writ petition is hereby allowed;

¶42

ii) The concerned respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner and take necessary steps to transfer the authorization/ licence of the fair price shop at Ashok Circle, Ranibennur, in favour of the petitioner on compassionate grounds in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in this order, 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.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90

Smt Swapna W/O Ganesh Kadaramandalagi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Swapna W/O Ganesh Kadaramandalagi 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

Shri Shankargoud S/O Ramangouda Dyawanagoudar Vs the Managing Director

Yallappa S/O Sannasomappa Musali Vs Smt. Shilpa W/O Yallappa Musali

Sri Mahesh Naik S/O Manjunath Naik Vs State of Karnataka

D. Venkanagowda S/O Rudragowda Vs P. Gangavva W/O Shrishailappa

Smt. Lalithamma N G W/O. Late Naendrappa N.G. Vs the Deputy Tahsildar

Shri.Sagar Devid Vs the Branch Manager