Allowed

Sri P Bhaskar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024WP/24880/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Son of a deceased fair price shop dealer challenged rejection of his application for compassionate transfer of the authorization under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 1992. Following its earlier order in W.P. No. 765/2024, the High Court quashed the endorsement rejecting his claim and directed reconsideration of the application.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 16.07.2024 quashed; respondent No.2 directed to reconsider petitioner's application dated 24.02.2022 per Control Order, 1992 and W.P. No. 765/2024 observations, within three months.

Sri P Bhaskar Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38054 WP No. 24880 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24880 OF 2024 (GM-PDS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. P. BHASKAR, S/O LATE SARASWATHI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP NO. 111, R/AT NO. 102, 3RD MAIN ROAD, KAVERI NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 070.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. NAVYA C.D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. N.B. PATIL, AGA)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 16/07/2024 MADE IN NO. JI.AA(NA) A. NYA

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:38054 WP No. 24880 of 2024

¶20

BE ANG PRA(DA):CG:11:2021-22 PASSED BY THE R2 PRODUCED ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this petition, the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased dealer, seeks the transfer of authorization to operate a fair price shop under the Public Distribution System (Control Order, 1992) on compassionate grounds. The deceased dealer had been granted authorization during his lifetime, and upon his death, the petitioner submitted an application requesting the transfer of that authorization.

¶24

The petitioner's application was rejected by Respondent No.2, the Deputy Director, on the grounds that the petitioner did not meet the requisite qualifications.

¶25

The issue involved in this petition is addressed by the order in W.P. No. 765/2024. In that case, this Court, by order dated 31.08.2024, held that the petitioners were entitled to the transfer of authorization granted to the dealer under the Control Order, 1992, as follows:

¶26

"5. After carefully considering the arguments put forth by the learned counsels for the parties, the key point for deliberation is whether the petitioner is entitled to the transfer of authorization to run fair price shops on compassionate grounds.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:38054 WP No. 24880 of 2024

¶29

6. Clause 13 of the unamended Public Distribution System (Control Order, 1992) dealt with the prohibition of the transfer of authorization. It states that no authorized dealer shall assign or transfer their authorization to any other person, nor shall any person carry on business on behalf of such an authorized dealer. However, a proviso to Clause 13 allows for the transfer of authorization in the event of the death of an authorized dealer, with prior approval of the Government, to the spouse, son, or unmarried daughter of the deceased.

¶30

7. Subsequent amendments to Clause 13, made in 2016, 2017, and 2021, introduced restrictions on the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. The amended provisions prohibit such transfers if the authorized dealer was over the age of 65 at the time of death or if the transferee had not completed the 10th standard and did not apply for the transfer within 90 days of the death.

¶31

8. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 13559/2022, upheld the validity of the amended proviso to Clause 13, but it was dealing with a challenge related to the renewal of authorization on compassionate grounds. In W.P. No. 55097/2017, disposed of on 11.12.2017, this Court held that the condition regarding the age limit imposed in the amended Clause 13 was not sustainable. The decision in W.P. No. 204335/2014, which was followed in W.P. No. 43249/2017, ruled similarly. Furthermore, in W.P. No. 103408/2023, disposed of on 12.06.2023, this Court reiterated that the restrictions introduced in the Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021 were prospective in nature and could not be applied retrospectively to authorizations granted under the unamended Control Order of 1992. Therefore, these restrictions are only applicable to applicants seeking fresh authorizations and not to existing authorized dealers or their legal heirs.

¶32

9. In W.P. No. 51361/2019, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court addressed the issue of whether

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:38054 WP No. 24880 of 2024

¶35

married daughters are entitled to the transfer of authorization. In paragraph 3, it was held that the Control Orders of 2016 and 2021, which provide for the transfer of authorization to unmarried daughters or widowed daughters with no source of income, cannot discriminate against married daughters solely on the basis of their marital status, provided they have no independent source of income. Such discrimination violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex. This view is supported by the decision in Bhuvaneshwari, where the Court held that the principle of equality extends to matters of compassionate appointments as well. The Supreme Court also affirmed this view in S.L.P. (C) No. 20166/2021, disposed of on 17.12.2021.

¶36

10. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench clearly establishes that there can be no discrimination between married and unmarried daughters when it comes to the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. Discriminating against daughters based solely on their marital status violates the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

11. In light of the foregoing, it is evident that the spouse, sons, adopted sons, and both married and unmarried daughters of deceased authorized dealers, who have attained the age of 18 years, are entitled to the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. Denial of such transfers on the grounds of marriage or other arbitrary criteria is discriminatory and unsustainable in law.

¶38

Therefore, this petition must also be disposed of in accordance with the order passed in W.P.No.765/2024. Accordingly, I pass the following;

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:38054 WP No. 24880 of 2024

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶43

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 16.07.2024 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-F is hereby quashed.

¶44

iii. Respondent No.2 - Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supplies Department, is hereby directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner on 24.02.2022 at Annexure-C, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order, 1992 and taking into consideration the observation made by this Court in W.P.No.765/2024.

¶45

iv. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶48

MCR

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK

Sri P Bhaskar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Bhaskar v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri R Manjunath Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sri Goutam Maloo Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sonnamma Vs the Assistant General Manager

Sri. Ramachandra Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants Co. Operative Bank Limited

K Sudhamani Vs the Union of India

Donthi N Spathagiri Vs the State of Karnataka