Sri S Siddaramappa Vs State of Karnataka

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.AaNaSa:2:CR45/93-94 dated 15.06.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 suspending the authorization granted to the petitioner. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider his representation dated 23.06.2022 to allow him to run a Fair Price Depot at Mitlakatte Village, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere district.

¶28

(i) The petitioner was granted an authorization to run a fair price depot at Mitlakatte Village, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere district, in the year 1993-1994. The petitioner claimed that he was running the fair price depot without any complaints by the card holders. Nonetheless, the respondent No.4 passed an order dated 01.12.2021 suspending the authorization granted to the petitioner in view of certain allegations made by the card holders. Based on the aforesaid order, the respondent No.4 addressed a communication to the

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:30275 WP No. 16179 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

respondent No.3 on 29.01.2022 to conduct an inspection in the village and submit a report. Accordingly, a report was submitted, based upon which, an order dated 06.06.2022 was passed canceling the order of suspension. The petitioner then addressed a letter dated 10.06.2022 to the respondent No.3 to permit him to distribute the essential commodities.

¶33

(ii) The petitioner contends that in the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 proceeded to pass an order dated 15.06.2022 suspending the authorisation granted to the petitioner pending enquiry after considering the objections filed by the villagers of Mitlakatte village. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.06.2022 requesting the respondent No.2 to revoke the order of suspension and permit him to run the fair price depot. Since the respondent No.2 has not considered the representation of the petitioner, he is before this Court challenging the order of suspension of licence as well as for a direction to permit him to run the fair price depot.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of suspension is passed by the respondent No.2 though he did not have any power to do so under the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:30275 WP No. 16179 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

(Control) (2^nd Amendment) Order, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'PDS (Control) Order, 2017' for short). He contends that an authorised authority under 'PDS (Control) Order, 2017' is only the Deputy Director of the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Davangere and not the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. He therefore, submits that the impugned order is passed without authority of law and therefore, the same is liable to be set at naught on this short ground alone. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.111746/2017. He further contends that the petitioner is now 75 years old and that he has been running the fair price depot for more than 30 years without any allegations and therefore, the impugned order be revoked and the petitioner be permitted to run the fair price depot.

¶39

The learned Additional Government Advocate for

¶40

the respondents submitted that there were serious allegations against the petitioner of storing the essential commodities at a place which was far away from the fair price depot. He contends that at the first instance, the authorisation granted to the petitioner was suspended and later it was revoked, subject

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:30275 WP No. 16179 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

to the condition that the petitioner does not indulge in similar activities. He contends that the petitioner who was permitted to run the fair price depot again indulged in similar activities which was evidenced from the report submitted by the food inspector. He therefore, contends that no indulgence should be shown to the petitioner who was given a noble task of distributing the essential commodities to the under privileged sections of society.

¶45

However, the question of law is whether the respondent No.2 is empowered to pass the order under Section 12(2) of 'PDS (Control) Order, 2017', the learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submits that in view of 'PDS (Control) Order, 2017', the authorised officer is only the Deputy Director of the Department of Food and Civil supplies and not the respondent No.2.

¶46

In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is one without jurisdiction and on this short ground alone, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed.

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:30275 WP No. 16179 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed

¶51

in part . The impugned order dated 15.06.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed. It is open for the Deputy Director, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Davanagere district to take appropriate action based on the report of the food inspector and pass appropriate orders.

¶52

It is made clear that until the Deputy Director passes an order, the interim arrangement already made to ensure supply of essential commodities to the card holders, shall continue.

¶53

In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do no survive for

¶54

consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶55

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶56

HJ

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri S Siddaramappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Siddaramappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shivaraj Basavannayya Swamy Vs the Honble Lokayuktha

Mr M S Krishnan Vs the State of Karnataka

Devidas B Rangadal Vs M/S Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank

Sri.B.P. Pemmaiah Vs the Secretary

Lanco Infratec Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri K J Narayanaswamy Vs the Managing Director