Allowed

Sri T Varada Raja v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2024WP/34265/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Son of a deceased fair price shop dealer sought compassionate transfer of the authorization; rejected on the ground the dealer died over 65. Following prior orders holding the 2016-2021 restrictions prospective only, the Court quashed the rejection endorsement and directed grant of authorization within three months.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement at Annexure-C quashed; respondent No.2 directed to consider application dated 12.03.2021 and grant authorization on compassionate grounds within three months.

Sri T Varada Raja Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:52554 WP No. 34265 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34265 OF 2024 (GM-PDS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI T VARADA RAJA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE. THIMMARAYAPPA R/AT. NALLUR VILLAGE, MULBAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 127.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RITHISH D. NAIK., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GROUND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR 563 101.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. ANITHA N. AGA)

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD. 18.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN NO.DRA/CR/77/2017-18 AT ANNX-C AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:52554 WP No. 34265 of 2024

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶24

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 12.03.2021, 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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Subsequent amendments to Clause 13, made in 2016, 2017, and 2021, introduced restrictions on the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52554 WP No. 34265 of 2024

¶30

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

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

Therefore, this petition must also be disposed of in accordance with the order passed in WP.Nos.7010/2023 and 22431/2024 . Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶35

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 18.03.2021 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-C is hereby quashed.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:52554 WP No. 34265 of 2024

¶38

(iii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to consider the application dated 12.03.2021 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure B for transfer of authorization on compassionate ground in terms of the order WP.No.7010/2023 dated 18.04.2023 and

¶39

WP.No.22431/2024 dated 11.09.2024 and grant authorization on compassionate ground within a period three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶40

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶41

TIN

Sri T Varada Raja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Varada Raja v. 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

Can Fin Homes Ltd. Vs Iswar Rao

Sneha Developers Vs Sri B v Subbarayan

Sri C Karna Deva Reddy Vs Branch Manager

Sri Durai Vs State Appropriate Authority

M/S Bestone India Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K G Krishna Vs District Registrar