Allowed

The Secretary v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2023WP/7919/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner was not the competent authority to order the establishment of a ration sub-station under the 2016 Notification. Consequently, orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Thasildar creating the sub-station were declared without jurisdiction, illegal, and unsustainable, and were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Impugned orders dated 04.04.2022 and 29.08.2023 passed by Respondents 1 and 3 respectively (Annexures-B and D) quashed. I.A.No.2/2022 rejected.

The Secretary Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.7919/2022(GM-PDS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE SECRETARY, SRI SIDDARAMESHWRA YOUTH CULTURAL AND SPORTS ASSOCIATION, CHIKKAMARALI VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571434.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SHIVARAMU H. C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571434.

¶12

2 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571434.

¶13

3 . THE THASILDAR, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI BASAVARAJ GODACHI, AGA FOR R1, 2 & 3; SRI B. ROOPESHA, ADV., for impleading applicants in I.A.No.2/2022)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 04.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN HIS ORDER No.Food/FPD/CR/12/202021 AT ANNEXURE-B. DIRECTION TO R-2 TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM 500 RATION CARDS WITH THE PETITIONER SOCIETY AS REQUIRED UNDER CLAUSE 11 OF KEC (PDS) CONTROL ORDER, 2016 AND ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.12.2023, THIS DAY THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is challenging the Office Memorandum dated 04.04.2022, Annexure-B, issued by respondent No.1.

¶21

The petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Act, 1961. The petitioner was granted authorization under Public Distribution System to distribute essential commodities in the year 1993-94 to the cardholders of Chikkamarali village consisting of Nuggahalli, Pandavapura Taluk. The dispute in this petition is in relation to distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders of Nuggahalli village.

¶22

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that about 240 cardholders of Nuggahalli village requested for transfer to Kanagana Maradi PACS and were transferred accordingly in the year 2020. Subsequent to the transfer, a group of cardholders of Nuggahalli village made a representation to open a sub-station at Nuggahalli village. The Joint Director/respondent No.2 being the Authorized Authority rejected the proposal in view of existence of sub-station at Nuggahalli village and essential commodities are being distributed by the petitioner through its sub-station.

¶24

Similar representation was again made by a group of cardholders of Nuggahalli village to open a sub-station in their village. Again respondent No.2 being the Authorized Authority rejected the same in view of existence of substation at Nuggahalli as per Annexure A2. It was further observed that in view of portability facility, the cardholders are facilitated to collect food grains at their convenience from any Fair Price Depot (FPD). The orders dated 19.08.2020 and 17.08.2021 reached finality.

¶25

¶26

Respondent No.1 considering the application and referring to note of the Hon'ble Minister, without referring to the previous rejection of similar request as per Annexures-A1 and A2, passed an order for opening of a sub-station at Nuggahalli village to distribute food grains for two days in a month to be distributed by Kanagana Maradi PACS. As a consequence, respondent No.3 passed an order on 29.08.2023, Annexure-D establishing substation for distribution of food grains.

¶27

Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order at Annexure-A, dated 30.12.2015 by respondent No.1 has permitted establishing sub-station at Nuggahalli village. Sub-station is in existence at Nuggahalli village through which petitioner is supplying food grains. The request of group of cardholders of Nuggahalli village for establishing another sub-station in the same village has been rejected by respondent No.2 at Annexures A1 and A2. The order impugned at AnnexureB, dated 04.04.2022 by respondent No.1 is without

¶28

¶29

jurisdiction. In view of Notification dated 10.06.2016 as amended by Notification dated 05.06.2017, Deputy/Joint Director of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs is the Authorized Authority to pass orders for establishing substations.

¶30

It is further submitted that in terms of Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, there is a requirement of minimum 800 cardholders for each distribution centre. The respondents due to political reasons, in order to disqualify the petitioner, have illegally transferred approximately 120 cardholders to Kanagana Maradi PACS. Hence, prays for quashing of Annexures-B and D passed by respondent Nos.1 and 3 respectively.

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that orders establishing sub-stations have been passed considering the interest of cardholders and justify the impugned orders.

¶32

¶33

Sri B Roopesha, learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicants submits that 120 cardholders of Nuggahalli village are not willing to collect ration from the petitioner. In view of godown of Kanagana Maradi PACS being situated in Nuggahalli village, respondent No.1 has rightly permitted opening of another sub-station at Nuggahalli village for distribution of food grains by Kanagana Maradi PACS twice in a month. The said permission would not prejudice the petitioner. It is further submitted that in view of 120 cardholders have already been transferred to Kanagana Maradi PACS, the contention of the petitioner that transfer was to disqualify the petitioner by reducing the requisite cardholders is misplaced.

¶34

Learned counsel further submits that as the orders at Annexures-B and D are passed at the instance of impleading applicants being part of 120 cardholders, they are necessary parties to the writ petition and seek to be impleaded as respondents in the writ petition.

¶35

¶36

Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, impleading applicants and learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records.

¶37

The contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1 is not the Authorized Authority to pass the impugned order dated 04.04.2022 at Annexure-B is not controverted by learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for the impleading applicants.

¶38

The definition of 'Authorized Authority' as defined in the Notification dated 10.06.2016, reads as under;

¶39

" 2(e) 'Authorized Authority' means the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned in the rural, urban and the informal rationing areas in the district concerned (except Bangalore Informal Rationing Area) and the Additional Director (PD) for the area comprised in "Bangalore Informal Rationing Area."

¶40

The said definition has been amended by Notification dated 05.06.2017, which reads as under;

¶41

¶42

" (e) "Authorized Authority" means the Deputy Director of the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department of Revenue district concerned, in the rural, urban and the Informal rationing areas in the district concerned (except Bengaluru informal rationing area) and the Deputy Director of the concerned range in Bengaluru Informal Rationing Area."

¶43

The order impugned is dated 04.04.2022 at

¶44

Annexure-B. Hence, the definition as amended by Notification dated 05.06.2017 is applicable.

¶45

In view of Notification dated 10.06.2016 bearing No.FCS 17 RPR 2011 (1) and amended on 05.06.2017, the Authorized Authority to pass orders establishing substation is respondent No.2. Hence, the impugned order dated 04.04.2022 at Annexure-B and consequential order at Annexure-D passed by respondent Nos.1 and 3 respectively are without jurisdiction.

¶46

The request of the cardholders of Nuggahalli village has been considered by order dated 30.12.2015

¶47

¶48

establishing sub-station in the said village permitting the petitioner to distribute the food grains. Conditions also have been imposed. Examination of Annexures-B and D would not indicate any other reason or purpose for establishing another sub-station at Nuggahalli village. Undisputedly, there are no allegations regarding any misappropriation, mis-use or any irregularity or contravention of conditions of authorization on the part of the petitioner in supplying food grains through its sub-station at Nuggahalli village.

¶49

The request for establishing sub-station at the instance of a group of cardholders has been rejected by respondent No.2 by order dated 19.08.2020 and 17.08.2021, Annexures A1 and A2 respectively. These orders have reached finality. Though respondent No.1 has made a reference to the said endorsement, no finding has been recorded to deviate from the said view taken earlier. The various correspondence in reference to the order

¶50

¶51

dated 04.04.2022 would clearly indicate non-application of mind by respondent No.1.

¶52

The purpose of opening FPD with reference to number of cardholders and number of villagers having close proximity to the centre is on consideration of the interest of cardholders as well as the person operating FPD. The authorized person has the responsibility of distributing food grains in terms of the policy of the Government. The cardholder's right is to receive food grains from FPD authorized by the Authorized Authority and as per the scheme and guidelines formulated by the Government. As long as the cardholder has no grievance of any irregularity, illegality or any other violation of the scheme against authorized FPD, cardholder has no right to choose FPD to receive food grains especially when the option sought is detrimental to the interest of authorized FPD for the locality.

¶53

In the present case, none of the cardholders of Nuggahalli village have alleged any irregularity, illegality or

¶54

¶55

any other violation of the scheme. The respondents also do not refer to any such irregularities or illegalities either before this Court or in the impugned orders. The impleading applicants except pleading that they want to receive food grains from Kanagana Maradi PACS, no material has been placed on record to justify requirement of establishing sub-station in the same village to be distributed by Kanagana Maradi PACS when the petitioner has been authorized to open the sub-station by order at Annexure-A, dated 30.12.2015 and the same is rendering services to the cardholders of Nuggahalli village without contravention of conditions of authorization

¶56

As rightly observed by respondent No.2 in the orders dated 19.08.2020 and 17.08.2021, there is no provision for opening another sub-station when a sub-station is already in existence in the same village. This position has not changed. If multiple sub-stations are to be permitted, the very purpose of authorization issued on minimum of

¶57

¶58

number of cardholders and to the particular jurisdictional area would be defeated.

¶59

Even if the impleading applicants are not interested in collecting food grains from the petitioner, in view of portability system, the impleading applicants would be at liberty to receive their food grains from FPD convenient and comfortable to them. Just because few cardholders without alleging any irregularities, feel comfortable to receive food grains from another FPD, respondent No.1 committed an error in permitting sub-station to be operated by Kanagana Maradi PACS at Nuggahalli village when the sub-station operated by the petitioner is already in existence.

¶60

In view of the finding of this Court in the preceding paragraphs that respondent No.1 was not the Authorised Authority and competent to pass order establishing sub-station in terms of Annexure-B and the same being without jurisdiction, the impleading applicants are not

¶61

¶62

necessary parties to this petition. Hence, the impleading application is to be rejected.

¶63

In view of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the view that the action of respondent Nos.1 and 3 in passing impugned orders at Annexures-B and D are without jurisdiction, illegal and unsustainable. Hence, the following:

¶64

Order

¶65

i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The order at Annexures-B, dated 04.04.2022 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed. Order dated 29.08.2023 at Annexure-D passed by respondent No.3 being consequential, the same is quashed.

¶66

iii) I.A.No.2/2022 for impleading applicants as respondent Nos.4 to 7 is rejected. iv) No order as to costs.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

The Secretary v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Gangi Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. S P Chidanand Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Luviza Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sree Gangadhareshwara Fertilizers Vs the Authorised Officer

M/S Muthu Khotey Educational Society Vs the State of Karnataka