Allowed

K. Ashwathappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2023WP/19520/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order rejecting transfer of endorsement due to age violation. Court quashed order and directed respondent to consider application without age/qualification restrictions, relying on coordinate bench precedents mandating similar treatment for like cases on compassionate grounds.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondent directed to consider application without age/qualification criteria within eight weeks.

K. Ashwathappa Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:34186 WP No. 19520 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.19520 OF 2023 (GM-PDS)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

K. ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHIKKA KADIRAPPA, RESIDENT OF MUTHINAPALLI VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GROUND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶10

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101.

¶11

THE THASILDAR,

¶12

BAGEPALLI TALUK, BAGEPALLI, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 207. ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI RAJENDRA K.R., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.08.2023 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN HIS ORDER NO.AANA.SA/DRA/BAA/18/2016-17 AT ANNEXURE-B; ISSUE WRIT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27.04.2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A1 IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2019 PASSED IN WP.NO.17131/2018 AT ANNEXURE-C AND THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO.17048/2021 AT ANNEXURE-C1;

¶16

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

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:34186 WP No. 19520 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner in this writ petition assails the endorsement dated 17.08.2023 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B and a writ of mandamus to respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 27.04.2023 at Annexure-A1 in terms of the order dated 08.02.2019 passed in W.P. No.17131/2018 at Annexure-C and the order dated 20.09.2021 passed in W.P. No.17048/2021 at

¶20

Annexure-C1.

¶21

Heard Sri. Shivaramu H.C, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rajendra K.R, learned AGA for the respondents.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka and Others¹

¶23

[Smt. Pushpa] and in the case of Hemanth Kumar B.O

¶24

1 W.P. No.17131/2018 dated 08.02.2019

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:34186 WP No. 19520 of 2023

¶26

Vs. State of Karnataka and another² [Hemanth Kumar] and would contend that in the said circumstances, the present petition needs to be disposed of in similar terms.

¶27

The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case

¶28

of Smt. Pushpa at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 has held as under:

¶29

“8. Admittedly, the application for transfer of endorsement in favour of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria with regard to the age. Paragraph5 of the order dated 20.02.2017 in W.P.No.6993/2017 reads as under:

¶30

“5. Both on the aspect relating to the applicant not requiring to pass the SSLC and the restriction of age not being applicable when the transfer of authorization is sought on compassionate ground has arisen before this Court in several writ petitions including W.P.No.22448/2015 dated 21.09.2016 and W.P.No.204335/2014 dated 17.11.2014 and it has been held that such condition cannot be

¶31

2 W.P. No.17148/2021 dated 20.09.2021

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:34186 WP No. 19520 of 2023

¶34

imposed for transfer on compassionate ground.”

¶35

9. 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.”

¶36

Another Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the

¶37

case of Hemanth Kumar, referring to the order in W.P. No.17131/2018 and referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court to treat like cases alike has held as under:

¶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 3 disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant,

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:34186 WP No. 19520 of 2023

¶40

similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.”

¶41

The decisions of the Co-Ordinate Bench referred

¶42

supra, applies to the subject matter in the present writ petition, for the foregoing reasons and in order to maintain parity, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶45

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 17.08.2023 is hereby set-aside.

¶46

iii. Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s application without reference to the age and qualification in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.17131/2018 and 17048/2021, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

MBM

K. Ashwathappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Ashwathappa v. 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

Irix Technologies (P) Ltd. Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

R G Somashekar Vs Assistant Commissioner

D S Siddappa Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Sri Ancherangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Govindaraju.R Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

M/S. Yogesh Pharmaceuticals Vs Canara Bank