Disposed

Edigara Santosh S/O E. Nagendrappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2023WP/100495/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the non-consideration of his representation regarding the 5th respondent's license suspension. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the representation and pass orders within three months after hearing concerned parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within three months after hearing.

Edigara Santosh S/O E. Nagendrappa Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100495 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100495 OF 2023 (GM-PDS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

EDIGARA SANTOSH S/O E.NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ICHALABOMMANAHALLI, KUPPINAKERI, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583135.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI A.R.PATIL AND SRI S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYANAGAR, HOSAPETE-583201.

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, HOSAPETE-583201, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶15

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

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR, KUDLIGI-583135, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR.

¶17

THE FOOD INSPECTOR, TALUKA OFFICE KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR.

¶18

BANAKAR VEERANNA, FARE PRICE SHOP MERCHANT, R/O KUPPINAKERE,

¶19

TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583135.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT V.MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SADIQ N.GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶21

¶22

WP No. 100495 of 2023

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, (A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31/12/2022 IN NO.AA.NA.SA-06/NYABELE/ AMANATU/22-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES HOSAPETE VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, 2^ND RESPONDENT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. (B) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE MEMORANDUM DATED 07.01.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶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 following reliefs:

¶27

“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 31/12/2022 in No.Aa.Na.Sa-06/Nyabele/Amanatu/22-23 vide Annexure-F passed by the Deputy Director, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Hosapete, Vijayanagar district, 2^nd respondent, in the ends of justice and equity.

¶28

(b) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to consider the memorandum dated 07.01.2023 vide Annexure-G, in the ends of justice and equity.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 100495 of 2023

¶31

(c) Any other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and just in the ends of justice.”

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

¶33

A short grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that aggrieved by the revocation of the order of suspension of the authorization granted in favour of the 5^th respondent, petitioner submitted a representation at Annexure-G dated 07.01.2023 to the 1^st respondent who has not considered the same and has not passed any orders and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶34

Per contra , learned HCGP as well as learned counsel for respondent No.5 jointly submit that the petitioner is a mere card holder simpliciter and is not running rival fair price shop and the petitioner is neither aggrieved person nor does he have any locus standi to challenge the order of revocation of the suspension of the authorization licence issued in

¶35

¶36

WP No. 100495 of 2023

¶37

favour of the 5^th respondent and consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Though several contentions have been urged by both the petitioner as well as respondents in support of their respective claims, in view of the undisputed fact that the representation at Annexure-G submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the 1^st respondent and no orders have been passed on the same so far, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose off this petition directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation within a period of three months after notifying and hearing petitioner and respondent No.5 in accordance with law.

¶39

SD JUDGE

¶40

CLK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23

Edigara Santosh S/O E. Nagendrappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edigara Santosh S/O E. Nagendrappa v. the Deputy 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

Sri. Ravikumar S/O Vasudev Kammar Vs Smt. Natalin W/O Francis D Souza

Sadiqali S/O Budansab Negalur Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Swamy Agro Impliments Vs the Manager

Umesh S/O Shivaputrappa Vs North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation

Sri Shambulingaiah Since Dead by His Lrs Shakuntalamma W/O Late Sri Shambulingaiah Vs B Nagarudra Gouda S/O Veerabhadra Gouda

Haji Usmangani Humnabad Vs Karnataka State Board of Auqaf