Allowed

Balaji G.V. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023WP/7588/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Karnataka allowed relief to the petitioner. The court held the third respondent had effectively defaulted by failing to implement an earlier coordinate bench order. Consequently, the endorsement denying transfer was quashed, and mandamus was issued for immediate authorization transfer.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed. Endorsement dated 20.05.2022 quashed. Mandamus issued to issue authorization in favour of the petitioner.

Balaji G.V. Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43699 WP No. 7588 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7588 OF 2023 (GM-PDS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BALAJI G.V., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATACHALAPATHI G.L., HEBBARI GRAMA, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 563 146.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) CHINTAMANI, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPUR – 563 123.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CHINTAMANI CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPUR – 563 123.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:43699 WP No. 7588 of 2023

¶18

THE THASILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPUR-563123.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A IN NO.AA NA SA/DRA/CHIM/FPD/PRA/05/2022-23. TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO ISSUE AUTHORIZATION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY ALLOTTING THE FOOD GRAINS BY CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION DATED 16.04.2022 FOR TRANSFER OF AUTHORIZATION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH AT ANNEXURE – C.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶25

prayer:

¶26

“i) Quash the endorsement dated 20.05.2022 issued by the third respondent at Annexure – A in No.Aa Na Sa/DRA/Chim/FPD/PRA/05/2022-23’

¶27

ii) Issue writ of mandamus to the third respondent to issue authorization in favour of the petitioner by allotting the food grains by considering the application dated 16.04.2022 for transfer of authorization in favour of the petitioner forthwith at Annexure-C;

¶28

iii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order direction to the respondents as this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43699 WP No. 7588 of 2023

¶30

In the interest of justice and equity.”

¶31

Heard Sri. Shivaramu.H.C., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.

¶32

The petitioner was before this Court in an earlier petition in W.P.No.11207 of 2022 which comes to be disposed on 02-08-2022 by the following order:

¶33

“The subject matter of this writ petition being substantially similar to the one disposed off by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos. 13559/2020 (GM-PDS) & Connected Matters, between SRI MANMOHANKUMAR V.C. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, disposed off on 23.12.2021 there cannot be an adverse treatment to the petitioner herein.

¶34

2. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, disposed off on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat the like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant it has to be extended to a similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶35

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed off in terms of the judgment mentioned Supra.

¶36

Costs made easy.”

¶37

The 3^rd respondent has not considered the

¶38

representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.2022 on the score

¶39

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43699 WP No. 7588 of 2023

¶40

that this Court has not used the word ‘quashed’ while quashing

¶41

the endorsement in the earlier order.

¶42

The reason rendered by the concerned Authority, on the face of it, amounts to contempt. The order dated 02-082022 though did not specify that the impugned endorsement therein was quashed, the effect of the order is the same. In the aforesaid light, petition deserves to succeed.

¶43

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶46

(ii) Endorsement issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 20.05.2022 stands quashed.

¶47

(iii) Mandamus issues to the respondents to issue authorization in favour of the petitioner, as sought for in the petition.

¶48

BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 191

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

Balaji G.V. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji G.V. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Satec Envir Engineering (India ) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)

Mr Suresh B S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Beena Vs Union of India

Chandra Shekar S Vs N Srinivasa

M/S Master Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sri Jai Hanuman Traders Vs M/S Canara Bank