Allowed

Smt Savitha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024WP/5039/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought renewal of her fair price shop authorization granted on compassionate grounds; the endorsement refusing renewal was challenged. Since a government order permitted renewal for ten years subject to approval, the court quashed the endorsement and directed renewal within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 02.02.2024 quashed; respondent No.2 directed to renew petitioner's authorization per government order dated 16.01.2021 within one month.

Smt Savitha Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45342 WP No. 5039 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5039 OF 2024 (GM-PDS)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT SAVITHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O LATE K R RANGEGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO. 12 ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, 7TH B CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL, DISTRICT-560 091.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. H C SHIVARAMU., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

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

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRCTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 024.

¶13

THE THASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 024.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. ARUNA G S., HCGP)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:45342 WP No. 5039 of 2024

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 02/02/2024 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-C.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner was granted authorization on compassionate grounds to operate a fair price shop for a period of three years. Upon the expiry of this term, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the authorization. However, this application was rejected on the grounds that the petitioner was not entitled to such renewal. Aggrieved by this rejection, the present petition has been filed.

¶23

The State Government has submitted a statement of objections, indicating that the authorization granted to the petitioner has been renewed for a period of ten years pursuant to the government order dated 16.01.2021.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the government order dated 16.01.2021, which states that, subject to obtaining prior approval from the Commissioner, Food,

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:45342 WP No. 5039 of 2024

¶28

Civil Supplies, and Consumer Affairs Department, Bangalore, authorization may be renewed for a period of ten years.

¶29

In light of the above, the endorsement refusing to renew the petitioner’s authorization must be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i) The petition is allowed.

¶32

ii) The impugned endorsement dated 02.02.2024, issued by respondent No.2, as per Annexure-C, is hereby quashed.

¶33

iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to renew the authorization granted in favor of the petitioner in accordance with the government order dated 16.01.2021, as per Annexure-E within one month from the date of receiving this order .

¶34

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶35

BKM

Smt Savitha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Savitha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Suguna Vs Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Hazrath Hameed Shah Khadri and Hazrath Muhib Shah Khadri (Ra ) Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Aplomb Builders and Developers Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Mulberry Silks Limited Vs Liquidator for Southern Batteries Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Guru Prasad K S Vs the Government of India

Smt. S. Padmavathi, Vs State of Karnataka