Partly allowed

Smt. Dyamavva K v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/243/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair price shop licensee challenged an endorsement refusing to restore suspended food grain allotment, citing failure to maintain minimum ration cards. Court found no notice or hearing preceded the endorsement, set it aside, and directed fresh reconsideration with a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 08.12.2016 set aside; respondent No.3 to reconsider representation dated 01.12.2016 after granting hearing; interim order dated 30.01.2017 to continue till consideration.

Smt. Dyamavva K v Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36703 WP No. 243 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 243 OF 2017 (GM-PDS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. DYAMAVVA K. V., W/O VARALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHYAMANUR, NEAR BEERALINGESWARA TEMPLE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577004.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI B. M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577004. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36703 WP No. 243 of 2017

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 8.12.2016 ISSUED BY R-3 PRODUCED AS ANNXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri B M Siddappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S H Raghavendra, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶23

The petitioner was granted license under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (for short 'Order 1992) to run a Fair Price Shop at Shyamanuru Village. The license was granted on 18.01.2011 and continued till 18.01.2017. The allotment of food grains for distribution was suspended. The petitioner made a representation on 01.12.2016 to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 by endorsement dated 08.12.2016 rejected the request for restoration of license on the ground that the petitioner failed to maintain minimum number of ration cards in his shop. It is

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36703 WP No. 243 of 2017

¶25

further stated that the existing cards are less than 75% of the specified number.

¶26

Sri B M Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the financial viability is the concern of the petitioner. The suspension of supply of food grains for distribution was without any notice and opportunity of hearing. He submits that even while considering the representation at Annexure-B resulting in endorsement dated 08.12.2016, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner. He further submits that in respect of other persons, the licenses have been continued even when the number of cards is less than the prescribed limit. It is the submission of learned counsel that the decision on the representation of the petitioner is discriminatory.

¶27

Sri S H Raghavendra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner's shop should have 500 cards, whereas the petitioner is having only 90 cards. He submits that as per Clause 11 of the Karnataka Essential commodities Public Distribution (Control Order), 2016 (for short 'Order 2016'), the transfer of ration cards from one Fair Shop to another is prescribed, the number of

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:36703 WP No. 243 of 2017

¶30

ration cards in a shop is below 75% of the specified number. He further submits that before issuing the endorsement, an opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner through video conferencing.

¶31

Considered the submissions of learned counsel on both

¶32

side and perused the writ papers.

¶33

The petitioner was granted license under Order 1992 on 18.01.2011. The license was continued upto 18.01.2017. In the meantime, supply of food grains to the petitioner's shop for distribution was suspended. The petitioner made a representation on 01.12.2016 to revoke the suspension. The endorsement at Annexure-C dated 08.12.2016 was issued by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has recorded a finding that the petitioner is not maintaining minimum number of ration cards as required under Clause 11(3)(c) of Order, 2016. Though learned Additional Government Advocate submits that an opportunity was granted to the petitioner before issuing the endorsement, on careful perusal of the impugned endorsement, it cannot be said that the petitioner was issued with notice and an opportunity was provided.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36703 WP No. 243 of 2017

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional

¶36

Government Advocate for the respondents have raised various contentions. In view of the order to be passed, the contentions

¶37

are kept open. This Court is inclined to interfere only to a limited extent, to direct the respondents to reconsider afresh after an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶38

In light of the above, the following order;

¶39

Order

¶40

i) Writ petition is allowed in-part.

¶41

ii) The endorsement dated 08.12.2016 issued by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside.

¶42

iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to re-consider the representation dated 01.12.2016 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶43

iv) The interim order dated 30.01.2017 shall continue till the consideration of petitioner's representation by respondent No.3 in accordance with law.

¶44

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶45

MV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt. Dyamavva K v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dyamavva K v. Vs 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N N Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the Secretary to Government

Mr Shiva Subramanian Vs the Union of India

Sri Prabhakumar Ramiah Mysore Vs the Insurance Regulatory

Sri Sanath Semitha M Vs Recovery Officer/Authorized Officer

Sri Akhilesh Vs the Assistant Commissioner