Allowed

Smt. K. Manjula v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2023WP/1865/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. The Court quashed the impugned endorsement and directed the respondent to reconsider the application without regard to age or qualification, relying on a coordinate bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 23.12.2022 is quashed. Respondent No.4 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application without reference to age and qualification within 12 weeks.

Smt. K. Manjula Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1865 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1865 OF 2023 (GM-PDS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. K. MANJULA, W/O LATE R. CHANDRAPPA @ CHANDRAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O HALEHALLI, MAYASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 107.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRACHOODA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS SECTION), BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 1865 of 2023

¶18

ANEKAL,

¶19

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106.

¶20

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

¶21

FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.N.KUMAR, AGA)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 23/12/2022 PASSED IN NO. GAA(NA)AA/GL/2612/93-94 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE - D BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 23.12.2022, by which, the application of the petitioner seeking transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds comes to be rejected.

¶28

¶29

WP No. 1865 of 2023

¶30

Heard Sri. M.B. Chandrachooda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. N. Kumar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶31

Learned counsel, Sri. M.B. Chandrachooda, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the endorsement comes about on the ground that the age of the father was 65 years at the time when he died and therefore, the authorization cannot be transferred. This is held to be contrary to law by the

¶32

judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17048/2021 disposed on 20.09.2021, wherein it has held as follows:

¶33

"The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.17131/2018 disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 8.2.2019, copy whereof is at Annexure-F; at para Nos.9 & 10 of the order, said judgment reads as under:

¶34

“From close scrutiny of the aforesaid paragraph, it is evident that in W.P.No.22448/2015 which was decided by an order dated 21.09.2016, it has been held that the requirement with regard to having passed SSLC and restriction of age is not applicable when the transfer of authorization is sought on compassionate ground. The aforesaid finding has admittedly attained finality and is binding on the respondents as they have not challenged the same either by filing a review petition or by filing a writ appeal. Therefore this Court finds no reason to take a different view.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 1865 of 2023

¶37

10. In the result, the impugned endorsement dated 23.03.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to take note of the application filed by the petitioner and to consider the same for transfer of the authorization on compassionate ground as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.”

¶38

2. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶39

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed; impugned endorsement dated 03.09.2021 at Annexure-B is quashed; second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s application without reference to age and qualification.

¶40

Time for compliance is two months. No costs."

¶41

(emphasis supplied)

¶42

In the light of the fact that the issue in the lis stands covered to the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) , which is not disputed by the learned AGA, I deem it appropriate to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

I. The writ petition is allowed.

¶45

¶46

WP No. 1865 of 2023

¶47

II. The endorsement dated 23.12.2022 stands quashed.

¶48

III. Respondent No.4 is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations in the course of the order within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already issued.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

SJK

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Smt. K. Manjula v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Manjula 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Sanjiv Kunnatur Vs the Principal Secretary Housing Department

Abdul Malik Hameed Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Dr Latha K Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, District Caste and Income Verification Committee

Sri K M Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Purushotham C Y Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sri K S Mahesh Vs Smt Manjula J