Allowed

Smt Chinnamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2023WP/52524/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order suspending the petitioner's PDS shop authorization. The court held the Joint Director lacked jurisdiction as the Deputy Director was the designated authority under the prevailing notification. The impugned order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.09.2018 by Respondent No.3 is quashed; liberty reserved to respondents to act afresh; IA No.1/2019 dismissed.

Smt Chinnamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No.52524 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.52524 OF 2018 (GM-PDS)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT CHINNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O LATE MALIYAIAH, R/O MALARA COLONY, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 114.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶11

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶12

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP., FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANTS ON I.A.NO.01/2019)

¶16

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPGUNED ORDER DATED 24.09.018 PASSD BY THE R-3 AT ANNEXURE-J, GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.9.2018 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN HIS ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-J.

¶17

¶18

WP No.52524 of 2018

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Challenging impugned order dated 24.09.2018 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent no.3, suspending authorization issued to petitioner for running PDS shop, this writ petition is filed.

¶22

At out set, preliminary ground questioning regarding jurisdiction of respondent no.3 who passed order, is urged by referring to the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Control Order, 2016' for short) and Notification dated 05.06.2017 defining 'authorized authority' under Clause2(e) of Control Order, 2016.

¶23

Sri Shivaramu H.C., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per notification dated 05.06.2017, authorized authority in respect of Mysuru District would be Deputy Director and therefore order passed by respondent no.3 - Joint Director would be without jurisdiction. It was further submitted that notification dated 28.12.2018 issued subsequent to impugned order vested authority with Joint Director. But, as on date of

¶24

¶25

WP No.52524 of 2018

¶26

impugned order respondent no.3 did not have competence to

¶27

pass same.

¶28

Sri V.Shivareddy, learned High Court Government

¶29

Pleader appearing for respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for impleading applicants are unable to dispute same.

¶30

In view of above and since impugned order would be unsustainable on ground of lack of authority of respondent no.3, there would be no requirement to examine matter on merits. Hence, following:

¶31

O R D E R

¶32