Allowed

The Chief Executive Officer v. the Deputy Commissioner (Food)

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2024WP/10277/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A cooperative society challenged cancellation of its PDS shop authorization and the appellate confirmation, alleging no enquiry or hearing was given under Clause 12(1) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (PDS) Control Order, 2016. The Court set aside both orders as violative of natural justice and remitted the matter to respondent No.4 for fresh reconsideration within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation and appellate orders set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.4 for fresh consideration with hearing, to conclude within three months from 12.08.2024.

The Chief Executive Officer Vs the Deputy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:27964 WP No. 10277 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10277 OF 2024 (GM-PDS)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JAGAN MOHANA RANGANATHA SWAMY, PACC SANGHA, BELAKAVADI MAIN, (KIRAGASUR BRANCH), B G PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶10

THE THASILDAR MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶11

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER / DIRECTOR FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING, 5^TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052.

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2020 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN NO.CFS/APPEAL/72/2015-16 AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:27964 WP No. 10277 of 2024

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶22

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the third respondent in No.CFS / Appeal / 72 / 2015-16 at Annexure – H;

¶23

(ii) Consequently quash the order dated 19.01.2015 passed by the first respondent in his Order No.Food / FPD(1) / CR / 97 / 2013-14 at Annexure – D2;

¶24

(iii) Issue writ of mandamus to the fourth respondent to renew the authorization of the petitioner shop from the stage where it was stopped by accepting the necessary renewal fee from the petitioner Society by allotting food grains; and

¶25

(iv) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents deem fit in the circumstances of this case.”

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶27

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶28

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the Show cause Notice dated 05.12.2023 issued by the respondent to the petitioner, the authorization / licence granted in favour for the petitioner came to be suspended on 12.12.2013,

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27964 WP No. 10277 of 2024

¶30

subsequent, to which the petitioner submitted a reply dated 08.10.2014 denying various allegations made in the Show Cause Notice.

¶31

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that without conducting necessary enquiry and without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in terms of Clause 12(1) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2016, respondent has proceeded to cancel the authorization vide impugned order dated 19.01.2015, which was confirmed in appeal by the respondent vide Annexure – H. Aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.1 and respondent No.3, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order at Annexure – D2 dated 19.01.2015 will indicate that apart from canceling the authorization

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27964 WP No. 10277 of 2024

¶35

granted in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.1 has not conducted necessary enquiry nor has provided any opportunity to the petitioner as required in Clause 12 supra and as such, having regard to the material on record, which indicates that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the aforesaid provisions coupled with the fact that the Appellant – Authority has mechanically / summarily dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to respondent No.4, for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

¶36

In the result, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶39

(ii) The impugned order dated 19.01.2015

¶40

passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure – D2 and the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure – H are hereby set aside.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:27964 WP No. 10277 of 2024

¶43

(iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.4

¶44

for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

¶45

(iv) Petitioner undertakes to appear before respondent No.4 on 12.08.2024.

¶46

(v) Respondent No.4 shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner and consider pleadings, documents, etc., submitted by the petitioner and conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from 12.08.2024.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67

The Chief Executive Officer v. the Deputy Commissioner (Food)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Executive Officer v. the Deputy Commissioner (Food)

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

Fala Consumers Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Mohan K Nanaiah Vs Aditya Birla Finance Limited

Sundara Murthy Vs the District Registrar and Deputy Registrar

M/S Green -O- Tech India Vs M/S Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.

Sunil Rao G K Vs Lingadevachari @ Lingadevarajachar

B.A. Nagendra Vs State of Karnataka