Allowed

K.R. Jagadish v. Joint Director of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2024WP/4793/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A fair price shop operator's authorization was suspended on the alleged ground that he failed to open a sub-outlet in Kaggala village. The court found no such requirement existed in the authorization terms and the suspension violated Clause 12 procedures, quashed the suspension and permitted him to resume operating the shop.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure-E) quashed; petitioner permitted to operate the fair price shop per authorization terms.

K.R. Jagadish Vs Joint Director of Food, Civil… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:46607 WP No. 4793 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4793 OF 2024 (GM-PDS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K.R. JAGADISH S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS FAIR PRICE DEPOT NO 40, DAMMANAHALLI SALIGRAMA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 604.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. A V GANGADHARAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE - 570001.

¶12

TAHSILDAR,

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SALIGRAMA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 604.

¶15

(BY SRI. ARUNA G S., HCGP)

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING JT.D.MY/FCS/41/2023-24 DTD 06.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AS ANNEXURE-E.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:46607 WP No. 4793 of 2024

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has been granted authorization by the competent authority to operate a fair price shop for the distribution of essential commodities, subject to specific terms and conditions. This authorization was regularly renewed and remained in effect from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2022.

¶24

Given the circumstances, respondent No. 1 has issued an impugned order suspending the petitioner’s authorization, alleging that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions governing the authorization.

¶25

3. Heard the learned counsel for both parties.

¶26

Upon a perusal of the impugned order issued by respondent No. 1, it appears that the basis for suspension is the petitioner’s alleged failure to comply with a directive to open a sub-outlet in Kaggala village. However, it is pertinent to note that the terms and conditions of the petitioner’s authorization do not contain any provision mandating the establishment of a sub-outlet at Kaggala village. Consequently, there is no factual basis to claim that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the authorization by not opening the said sub-outlet.

¶27

Therefore, the impugned order issued by respondent No.1 suspending the petitioner’s authorization is

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:46607 WP No. 4793 of 2024

¶30

contrary to Clause 12 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2016. This clause prescribes the grounds and procedures for taking disciplinary action, and the impugned order does not conform to these stipulations. In the absence of a clear breach of conditions by the petitioner, the order of suspension is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) The petition is allowed.

¶33

ii) The impugned order dated 6.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-E is hereby quashed.

¶34

iii) The petitioner is permitted to operate a fair price shop in accordance with the terms and conditions of the authorization.

¶35

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶36

BKM

K.R. Jagadish v. Joint Director of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R. Jagadish v. Joint Director of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs

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 Manjunath E Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Surendra M Vs State of Karnataka

Potters Cottage Industrial Co-Op Society Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath K R Vs the State of Karnataka

Anukumar v Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Sridhara Brahmavara Vs Office of the Joint Director