Smt.Manjula .H.K Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE(A) DECLARE THE PROVISO TO CLAUSE 13 OF THE KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25965 WP No. 20647 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

COMMODITIES (PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CONTROL) ORDER-2016 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PRESCRIBING THE AGE OF THE DEATH OF THE AUTHORISED HOLDER TO BE BELOW 65 YEARS AND THE CONDITION THAT MEMBER OF THE FAMILY OF AUTHORISED HOLDER SHOULD HAVE PASSED 10TH STANDARD TO GET THE AUTHORISATION TRANSFERRED ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND, AS ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER CHAPTER III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-'D' dated 30.06.2025.

¶27

The case made out is that the petitioner's husband was holder of authorisation of Fair Price Depot and upon death of petitioner's husband, an application came to be made by the petitioner, wherein the said application came to be rejected as per the impugned endorsement at Annexure-'D' dated 30.06.2025. The application of the petitioner for transfer of authorisation standing in the name of petitioner's husband came to be rejected on two grounds - (i) that the husband of

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25965 WP No. 20647 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

petitioner was aged 71 years as on the date of his death and (ii) the petitioner did not possess qualification of SSLC.

¶31

Noticed the order dated 11.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.16368/2025. The precise aspect of rejection of transfer of authorisation on the ground of ineligibility due to educational qualification and age had been a subject

¶32

matter of many writ petitions including

¶33

W.P.No.16368/2025.

¶34

Para-3 of the order dated 11.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.16368/2025 reads as hereunder:-

¶35

"3. In terms of the order dated 16.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27403/2017, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-'C', the Co-ordinate Bench has observed at para-2 as follows:-

¶36

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

¶37

that the Deputy Commissioner has declined to allow the application filed at the hands of the petitioner seeking transfer of authorization hitherto held by her husband Sri P.Srinivas till his death, on the ground that the application

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25965 WP No. 20647 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

has been filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days and moreover, the petitioner has not passed S.S.L.C. examination and therefore, the authorization cannot be transferred. Learned Counsel submits that this Court has considered similar circumstances in various cases including

¶41

Sri Mallikarjun Ashok Matti Vs. State of

¶42

Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.105404/2018 dated 04.12.2018, decided at Dharwad Bench. Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph-6 of the order wherein the relevant Clause-13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 was considered by this Court having regard to the earlier 4 decisions rendered by the co-ordinate Benches in W.P.No.8586/2006 dated 21.11.2008; W.P.No.55097/2017 dated 11.12.2017; W.P.No.204335/2014 dated 17.11.2017 etc and held that prescription of age and minimum educational qualification cannot be made applicable to cases where the authorization is sought to be transferred on compassionate grounds and therefore, directed the authorities to consider their applications without insisting for minimum educational qualification and the age limit prescribed in the proviso and it was

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25965 WP No. 20647 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

also held that the technical ground for making the application within a period of 90 days also should not be made applicable in such cases or should be considered with leniency. When such benefit has been given to many other persons at the hands of this Court, the same cannot be denied to the petitioner."

¶46

Clearly, if authorisation is issued under the

¶47

earlier Food Control Orders, the amendment made to Clause-13 cannot have the effect of being applied retrospectively as regards authorisation issued under the earlier Food Control Orders.

¶48

Taking note of the law laid down, the

¶49

endorsement at Annexure-'D' dated 30.06.2025 is set aside. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner in light of the observations made and consequentially pass the orders for transfer of authorisation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:25965 WP No. 20647 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

It is needless to state that, no fresh conditions

¶54

are imposed while re-considering the transfer of

¶55

authorisation.

¶56

It is noticed that despite several orders passed

¶57

in numerous writ petitions, the Authorities concerned time

¶58

and again have been issuing stereotype orders and standard format orders rejecting transfer of authorisation on identical grounds. Once the High Court, while considering the writ petitions has held that conditions regarding ineligibility on the ground of age of holder of authorisation as well as educational qualification of the applicant cannot be taken note of to reject the transfer of authorisation, there is no warrant for passing of identical orders.

¶59

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off in light of the observations and directions hereinabove.

¶60

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶61

VGR

Smt.Manjula .H.K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Manjula .H.K 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. Ayub Khan Vs the Authorized Officer

Sri. Nithin a Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

N.S. Venkatesh Vs Union of India

Smt Hombamma Vs Sri Bhyraveshwara Sahakara Bank Niyamitha

Dr. Chandrashekarayya Salimath Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. B. Raheem Vs the Executive Magistrate