Petitioner souharda cooperative challenged orders granting a fair price shop licence to a rival cooperative registered under the KCSA 1959 two months earlier. The court held the PDS Control Order gives preference to KCSA-registered societies and found no error in the licensing and appellate orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH WRIT PETITION NO. 105258 OF 2024 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VEERARUDRA VIVIDHA UDDESHAGALA SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, SASALATTI-587315, REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO/SECRETARY, SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. SHIVALING KARIGAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY, R/O. SASALATTI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587315.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SAROJA HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12796 WP No. 105258 of 2024
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI. HARSHAVARADHAN M. PATIL, ADV. FOR C/R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO. KRA.SAM:AANAS/HONYABEAM/VIVA-152/2022-23 (� � � � ����� � � � ���� � �����-152/2022-23) DATED 9/08/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E; A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO. ANAS/NYABEAM/MELMANAVI/VIVA-01/2024-25 (� � ����� � ���� � ��� � �� �� ����-01/2024-25) DATED 8/8/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This matter is listed for preliminary hearing with the consent of both the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.
writ of certiorari quashing the order bearing No.KRA.SAM: AANAS/HONYABEAM/VIVA-152/2022-23 �� � � � ����� � � � ���� � ���� �
152/2022-23) dated 09.08.2023, passed by the Respondent No.3 marked at Annexure-E and also issue writ of certiorari quashing the order bearing No.ANAS/NYABEAM/MELMANAVI/VIVA01/2024-25 �� � ����� � ���� � ��� � �� �� ��� � 01/2024-25) dated 08.08.2024, passed by the respondent No.2 marked at Annexure-L.
submitted the report to open a new Fair price shop on 16.01.2023. On the basis of the said report there was a paper publication/advertisement calling for applications to open a new Fair Price Shop on 24.02.2023 as per Annexure-B. Annexure-A is pertaining to the registration of the society by the petitioner. The petitioner, on the above said advertisement, applied to the respondents for grant of license to run a Fair Price Shop in Sasalatti village on 15.03.2023 as per Annexure-C.
09.08.2023 as per Annexure-E and the same is challenged before this Court. This Court, as per Annexure-G, passed an order to approach the Appellate forum vide order dated 16.08.2023 and thereafter, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority did not considered the same and hence, one more writ petition was filed and the Court was also disposed off, permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before respondent No.2 within a period of one week and interim order was extended till the disposal of the appeal as per Annexure-J. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal in terms of Annexure-K and impugned order passed as per Annexure-L. Rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, hence, the present petition is filed before this Court.
6(1)(b)(II)(4), there is a scope to grant licence to respondent No.5, therefore, the impugned order is passed.
committed an error and not read the entire Clause with the
above said note. The differentiation made by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be accepted and the very approach of both the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is erroneous and committed an error in passing the impugned order. The counsel brought to notice of this Court the KSSA, 1997 and also brought to notice of this Court Section 2(e), wherein, the word “Co-operative” means an explanation is given and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have committed an error only referring Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2016 and the very approach is erroneous and the counsel also brought to notice of this Court and even as per the amendment notification dated 21.05.2018, wherein also amendment of Clause-6 brought to notice of this Court societies as well as the individuals in Clause-4. The benchmark measuring the quality of the above Co-operative societies are based on auditing Grade-A, B and C which shall be considered, hence, the approach of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is erroneous and requires interference. The learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court the audit report of both the petitioners as well as respondent No.5, wherein, Grade is also given throughout as B-category and ought to have taken note of
financial viability while considering the same and the same has not been considered.
Court that the definition of the KSSA, 1997, the word 2(e) definition and also brought to notice of 2(g), wherein, cooperative society means as co-operative society registered under the KCSP, 1959.
by the respondent No3 is in favour of respondent No.5 and the same is questioned before the Appellate Authority and also the Appellate Authority also granted the licence in favour of respondent No.5. Both the orders are challenged before this Court.
registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and hence, I do not find any error committed by the Appellate Authority in passing such an order and hence I do not find any force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the authority ought to have taken note of financial viability of the society while granting the licence. Hence, I do not find any merit in the writ petition to quash Annexure-E and Annexure-L and there is no merit in the writ to quash the same.
ORDER
Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
PMP,NAA CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a society registered under the KSSA 1997 should be granted the fair price shop licence over one registered earlier under the KCSA 1959.
Whether financial viability and audit grade of the societies should have been preferred in granting the PDS licence.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Sri Veerarudra Vividha Uddeshagala Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Sasalatti
The Government of Karnataka
The Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkote
The Joint Director, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Bagalkote
The Tahasildar, Rabakavi-Banahatti
Shri Veerabhadreshwar Vividha Uddeshagala Sahakari Sangha Niyamit, Sasalatti
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
