Allowed

B R Madhusudhan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024WP/24882/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition quashing the rejection of an application to transfer a Fair Price Shop authorization to the petitioner, the son of a deceased dealer. The court held that amended restrictions regarding the age of the deceased dealer and discrimination against married daughters do not apply to the petitioner's case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement rejecting the application to transfer the authorization is quashed, and the respondent is directed to reconsider the application within three months.

B R Madhusudhan Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37804 WP No. 24882 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24882 OF 2024 (GM-PDS)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

B R MADHUSUDHAN SON OF LATE RAJU N, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.28, BYLADAKERE, BELLUR HOBLI, AADICHUNCHANGIRI, MANDYA-571 811

¶7

… PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. JEEVAN KUMAR B S., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY, M.S.BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

THE JOINT DIRECTOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401

¶13

… RESPONDENTS

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:37804 WP No. 24882 of 2024

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 23/08/2024 PASSED BY SECOND RESPONDENT BEARING NO. AHARA/NYABELEANGADI/CR/41/202425 (ANNX-B) TO THE WP AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.

¶22

The petitioner is the son of a dealer who was granted authorization to operate a fair price shop for the distribution of food grains under the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 1992. Upon the death of his father, the petitioner filed an application dated 23.08.2024, seeking the transfer of the authorization granted to his father on compassionate grounds. However, the said application was rejected on the ground that the deceased license holder was over 65 years of age at the time of his death.

¶23

This Court, in similar circumstances in W.P. No. 765/2024 and connected matters, has passed the following order:

¶24

"In all these petitions, the petitioners, who are the sons, spouse, and both married and unmarried daughters of the deceased dealers, seek the transfer of authorization to operate fair price shops under the Public Distribution System (Control Order, 1992) on compassionate grounds. The deceased dealers had been granted authorization during their lifetime, and upon their passing, the

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37804 WP No. 24882 of 2024

¶26

petitioners submitted applications requesting the transfer of the said authorization.

¶27

The petitioners' applications were rejected on the grounds that married daughters are not entitled to the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds, they did not meet the requisite qualifications, and the age of the deceased license holders at the time of death exceeded 65 years.

¶28

The learned counsels for the petitioners contended that the original authorization was granted under the Control Orders of 1986 and 1992, and as per the provisions of unamended Clause 13, there was no restriction on the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. The petitioners argued that the amended Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021 are not applicable to authorizations granted under the unamended orders. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that married daughters are equally entitled to the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds, citing the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 51361/2019.

¶29

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents, along with the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) representing the State, argued that the amended Clause 13 of the Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021 explicitly prohibits the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds if the authorized dealer dies after reaching the age of 65 years or if the transferee does not possess the prescribed qualifications. They relied on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 13559/2020 and connected petitions, which were disposed of on 23.12.2021, to support their position.

¶30

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

¶31

Clause 13 of the unamended Public Distribution System (Control Order, 1992) dealt with the prohibition of the transfer of authorization. It states that no

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37804 WP No. 24882 of 2024

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:37804 WP No. 24882 of 2024

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

4. In light of the above, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶45

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 23.08.2024 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B is hereby quashed.

¶46

(iii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to reconsider the application dated 23.08.2024 and pass

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:37804 WP No. 24882 of 2024

¶48

¶49

appropriate orders in accordance with law in light of the observations made in W.P.No. 765/2024 and connected matters, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶50

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶51

B R Madhusudhan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B R Madhusudhan 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

M/S India Shelter Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Mrs Mounika G

H S Madhusudan Vs the City Union Bank Ltd.

Smt. Kunukuntla Jyothi Vs Union of India

M/S Kids Clinic India Ltd. Vs Karnataka Medical Council

Mr. M v Prasanna Vs the Chief Manager

Canara Bank Vs M/S Star Grandeur