Allowed

Sri. K. C Devaraj, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Apr 2023WP/6323/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench allowed a writ petition quashing an endorsement that rejected a petitioner's application for transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. The court directed the respondent to reconsider the application without reference to age or qualification restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; endorsement dated 27.02.2023 quashed; respondent directed to reconsider application without age/qualification reference within 12 weeks.

Sri. K. C Devaraj, Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 6323 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6323 OF 2023 (GM-PDS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K. C DEVARAJ, S/O LATE K CHANDRASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT YERCHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KULAMBI POST - 577219, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed (BY SRI. CHANDRAPPA T., ADVOCATE) by PADMAVATHI B K AND: Location: HIGH COURT OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, DAVANGERE 577006.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD 27.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE R- 2 REJECTING THE APPLICATION IN NO.SAM.AANASA.5.C.R.336/93-94 (ANNX-A), DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR TRANSFER OF AUTHORIZATION TO HIS NAME ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 6323 of 2023

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 27.02.2023, by which, the application of the petitioner seeking transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds comes to be rejected.

¶21

Heard Sri. Chandrappa T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶22

Learned counsel, Sri. Chandrappa T, appearing 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:

¶23

"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

¶24

¶25

WP No. 6323 of 2023

¶26

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:

¶27

“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.

¶28

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.”

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

WP No. 6323 of 2023

¶33

petitioner’s application without reference to age and qualification.

¶34

Time for compliance is two months. No costs."

¶35

(emphasis supplied)

¶36

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:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

I. The writ petition is allowed.

¶39

II. The endorsement dated 27.02.2023 stands quashed.

¶40

III. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and appropriate orders shall be passed, only if the same is not allotted to any other person as on date.

¶41

GPG

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

Sri. K. C Devaraj, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. C Devaraj, 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

Sri.Suna Miandad Vs the State of Karnataka

State Bank of India Vs M/S Akshayam Sands and Industries

Shri Kumara Swamy a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sunil Kumar K.S., Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. M.H. Shiva Prasad Vs the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager

M Govinda Bhat, Vs the Deputy Commissioner