Allowed

Sri Syed Younus Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2023WP/18990/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Bench allowed a petition seeking to quash an endorsement rejecting transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. The court relied on coordinate jurisdiction orders holding that age and qualification requirements are not applicable for compassionate transfers.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 06.05.2022 quashed; Respondent No.2 directed to reconsider application within 12 weeks.

Sri Syed Younus Pasha Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 18990 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 18990 OF 2022 (GM-PDS)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. SYED YOUNUS PASHA S/O LATE SYED SADIQ PASHA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.9,

¶7

BEHIND MANASA HOSPITAL, MARUTHI EXTENSION, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ N. NAIDU, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL

¶12

SECRETARY,

¶13

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

¶14

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND

¶15

LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

¶17

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶18

¶19

WP No. 18990 of 2022

¶20

THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.05.2022 ISSUED BY R2 IN HIS NO.GA(NA)AA.NYA BE PRA(U)CG02.2022.23 PRODUCED ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 06.05.2022, by which, the application of the petitioner seeking transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds comes to be rejected.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

WP No. 18990 of 2022

¶30

Learned counsel, Sri. Nagaraj N. Naidu, appearing

¶31

for the petitioner would submit that the endorsement comes about on the ground that the age of the father was above 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 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:

¶32

"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:

¶33

“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.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

WP No. 18990 of 2022

¶37

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.

¶41

No costs."

¶42

(emphasis supplied)

¶43

In the light of the fact that the issue in the lis

¶44

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:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

I. The writ petition is allowed.

¶47

¶48

WP No. 18990 of 2022

¶49

II. The endorsement dated 06.05.2022 stands

¶50

quashed.

¶51

III. Respondent No.2 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.

¶52

IV. The representation of the petitioner would be considered in the course of the order within 12 weeks and appropriate orders shall be passed only if the same is not allotted to any other person as on date.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Sri Syed Younus Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Syed Younus Pasha 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

Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Sri Diwakara K Vs State of Karnataka

M R Paramashivaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Chitramala Land and Flat Owners Welfare Association Vs Government of Karnataka

Smt. Shwetha M Vs Punith C

Sri G S Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka