Sri. Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Food)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

®

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24448 OF 2018 (GM-EC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT RAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 019. (BY SRI. H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD), MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570001

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001.

¶14

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, MAJOR, S/O R.P.SIDDAIAH, R/AT RAMMANAHALLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 019.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶18

MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING, 5^TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R4; SMT.RASHMI K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.05.2018 PASSED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IN HIS ORDER NO.CFS/APPEAL/111/2016-17 AT ANNEXURE - G AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The Petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

(i) issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 24.05.2018 passed by the fourth respondent in his Order No.CFS/Appeal/111/2016-17 at Annexure-G;

¶26

(ii) quash the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the first respondent in his Order No.FPS/24/2010-11 at Annexure-E;

¶27

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus to the first respondent to restore the Authorisation in favour of the Petitioner as was in existence prior to the order dated 23.11.2016 and 24.05.2018 passed by the first and fourth respondents in No.FP:S/24/2010-11 and CFS/Appeal/211/2016-17 respectively produced at Annexures – E & G respectively; and

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶29

(iv) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the first, second and fourth respondents deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶30

The Petitioner belongs to the BESTA community, which is a non-scheduled caste community had in response to a Notification issued on 31.12.2001 under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (for short ‘Order of 1992’) applied for issuance of Authorisation to run Fair Price Depot. Being satisfied that he had complied with all the requirements under Clause (5) of the Order of 1992 he was granted Authorisation on 10-12-2002 which was renewed from time to time, in pursuance of which the Petitioner has been carrying on the said business,

¶31

Respondent No.3 in the year 2002 alleging that the Petitioner did not satisfy the requirements and further alleging that the priority has to be granted to respondent No.3 who belongs to scheduled caste community, had filed an appeal in Appeal No.104/2002-03, which came to be allowed and the Commissioner for Food and Civil Supplies-respondent No.4 had directed the grant of Authorisation in favour of respondent No.3. The said order came to be challenged by the Petitioner before the Hon’ble

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶34

Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, wherein an interim order was granted initially and thereafter the revision petition came to be rejected by order dated 29.04.2014.

¶35

It is aggrieved by the said order of the Revisional Authority, the Petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.26927/2014 and this Court initially had stayed the order of the Revisional Authority and subsequently by way of its Final Order dated 26.08.2015 remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to consider firstly whether the petitioner and respondent No.3 satisfied the eligibility criteria under Clause (5) of the Order of 1992 before assessing the priority under Clause (6) of the Order of 1992.

¶36

Subsequent to the said remand, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 23.11.2016 only examined the aspect of priority under Clause (6) of the Order of 1992 by stating that both the petitioner and respondent No.3 satisfied the requirement of Clause (5) of the Order of 1992 and that they were eligible. The Petitioner once again being aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal in Appeal No.111/2016-17 before the Commissioner for Food and Civil Supplies.

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶38

However, there being no Officer appointed, the Petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.4239/2017. This Court vide its order dated 09.01.2018 directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and until then permitted the Petitioner to continue the business. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 24.5.2018 reiterated the earlier order dated 20.10.2008 and held that both the petitioner and respondent No.3 satisfied the requirement of Clause (5) of the Order of 1992 and priority has to be granted to respondent No.3. The Petitioner aggrieved by the same, is before this Court without filing a revision petition before the Hon’ble Minister for Food and Civil Supplies.

¶39

Sri.H.C.Shivaramu., learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that;

¶40

7.1. The Petitioner, having satisfied all the requirements, had been granted Authorisation in the year 2001 was operating the Fair Price Depot till 2002, when respondent No.3 raised an objection by filing an appeal in Appeal No.104/2002-03, which came to be allowed on 20-10-2008.

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶42

7.2. His submission is that the challenge which has been made to the grant of Authorisation in favour of the Petitioner has been only made on the basis of the priority which has been granted to respondent No.3. The question of priority would arise only if the eligibility criteria is satisfied by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 does not have a suitable business premises in terms of Sub-Clause (b) of Clause (5) of the Order of 1992, the Petitioner has such a suitable business premises. Since respondent No.3 does not satisfy this requirement, there being no eligibility, the question of grant of priority under Clause (6) of the Order of 1992 would not arise. He therefore, submits that this aspect has not been looked into by the concerned Authority, all of them have only applied the aspect of priority under Clause (6) of the Order of 1992, without looking into the eligibility of the Petitioner.

¶43

7.3. His further submission is that there is no particular reservation made for this particular Fair Price Shop in Rammanahalli village for scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, or any other category of persons. Without any such

¶44

7 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶46

reservation being made, the said Fair Price Depot is being granted to a person belonging to scheduled caste without verifying the eligibility under Clause (5) of the Order of 1992.

¶47

7.4. He submits that since no reservation has been made at any point of time, the Petitioner would apply, if any other person belonging to scheduled caste, scheduled tribe or unemployed graduate etc., were to apply then the Petitioner would not be entitled for grant of Authorisation, thereby depriving the Petitioner of a right of employment for business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. His submission is that there is no manner of knowing how many fair price shops in the state have been allotted to which category and as such what is the extent of reservation provided.

¶48

7.5. He therefore submits that the orders which have been passed by the respondents are suffering from the above infirmities. This Court is required to interfere with and pass necessary orders.

¶49

Smt.Rashmi.K, learned counsel appearing for Sri. M.Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that;

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶51

8.1. Respondent No.3 also possesses a house where a similar Fair Price Depot could be run by respondent No.3, which would satisfy the requirement of Sub-Clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992. Such being the case, there cannot be any differentiation between the petitioner and respondent No.3, both of whom have a residential premise where the said business would be run.

¶52

8.2. She submits that any particular direction or order to safeguard or guidelines issued by the respondents in respect of running of the said business in residential premises would be adhered to by respondent No.3. Her submission is that respondent No.3 satisfies the requirement of Sub-Clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992, then the only aspect which was left to be decided was the priority in terms of Clause (6) of the Order of 1992.

¶53

8.3. Admittedly, respondent No.3 belonging to scheduled caste category and Petitioner belonging to the BESTA category which is not a scheduled caste, the priority has to be granted to respondent No.3 and this aspect has been

¶54

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶55

looked into by all the concerned Officers and no fault can be found in relation thereto.

¶56

Sri.Mahantesh Shettar., learned Government Advocate would submits that;

¶57

9.1. The impugned orders are properly passed all the aspects have been looked into in the right perspective. His submission is also that if there are no applicants under Clause 6 (1) (a) of the Order of 1992, then it would be the category of person under Clause 6 (1) (b) of the Order of 1992, who would be considered and if there are no applicants under 6(1) (b) (I to iv) of the Order of 1992, then only the persons who have been indicated in 6(1) (b) (v) of the Order of 1992, thereof would be considered and given priority.

¶58

9.2. The actions taken by the respondents are proper and correct, considering all these aspects.

¶59

Heard Sri. H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 as well as Smt. Rashmi.K., learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused papers.

¶60

10 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶62

The points that would be arise for considered by this Court are:

¶63

1. Is eligibility under Clause 5 of the Order of 1992 a pre-requisite for the purpose of granting priority under Clause 6 of the Order of 1992?

¶64

2. Whether a residential premise would be a suitable business premise under sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992.

¶65

3. Does the non-designation or reservation of a particular Fair Price Shop in Clause 6 of Order of 1992 impinge upon the right of the Petitioner to carry on business in terms of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India requiring any action to be taken?

¶66

4. What order?

¶67

I answer the above points as under.

¶68

13. Answer to point No.1: Is the eligibility under Clause 5 of the Order of 1992 a pre-requisite for granting priority under Clause 6 of the Order of 1992?

¶69

13.1. Clause 4 of the Order of 1992 speaks of application for Authorisation.

¶70

“ 4. Application for Authorisation.- (1) The Authorised Authority shall call for applications by publication of a notice after giving a minimum of thirty days time and publishing the same on the notice board of his office and at the office of the Tahsildar of the Taluk, Office of the Taluk

¶71

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶72

Panchayat Samithi, Office of the Mandal Panchayat concerned, Town Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation, Range Offices of the Food and Civil Supplies Department concerned, as the case may be .

¶73

(2) Every application for an authorisation or renewal thereof, shall be made to the Authorised Authority in Form ‘A’.

¶74

(3) Every Authorisation issued or renewed under this order shall be in Form ‘B’ and shall be subject to the conditions specified therein.”

¶75

13.2. Clause (5) of the Order of 1992 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶76

“ 5. Conditions for eligibility. - To be eligible for grant of Authorisation under Clause 3, an institution or person should satisfy the following conditions.-

¶77

(a) He should not have been convicted for an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 nor should a wholesale dealers licence or retail dealers licence issued to him under any order made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or an authorisation issued to him to run a fair price depot have been cancelled;

¶78

(b) He should be in possession of suitable business premises, and in the case of wholesale dealers, godowns with sufficient space to store the essential commodities;

¶79

(c) He should have sufficient funds in a bank account to purchase one month’s stock requirements.”

¶80

13.3. Once an application is made, it is Clause 5 of the Order of 1992, which requires the consideration of conditions for eligibility.

¶81

12 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶83

13.4. A perusal of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992 would indicate that, to be eligible for grant of Authorisation under Clause 3 of the Order of 1992, an institution or a person should satisfy the conditions. Therefore, the same relates back to Clause 3 of the Order of 1992, which deals with the issuance of Authorisation to persons/entities who have made an application for Authorisation.

¶84

13.5. Under Sub-Clause (a) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992, such applicant should not have been convicted for any offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, or an authorisation issued earlier ought not to have been cancelled. Such person should be in possession of a suitable business premises and in the case of wholesale dealers godowns with sufficient space to store the essential commodities and further that there should be sufficient funds in a bank account to purchase one month stock requirement.

¶85

13.6. These are eligibility under Clause 5 of the Order of 1992, Clause 6 of the Order of 1992 relates to priority for grant of Authorisation. The said

¶86

13 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶88

Clause 6 of the Order of 1992, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference.

¶89

“ 6. Order of priority for grant of Authorisation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Clause 5, the authorised authority shall follow the following order of priority for granting Authorisation.

¶90

(a) Authorised Wholesale Dealer:

¶91

(i) Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation.

¶92

(ii) Co-operative Societies registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act which have been in existence for atleast one year.

¶93

(b) Fair Price Depots.-

¶94

(i) Stree Shakthi Groups recognised by the Women and Child Development Department, Government of Karnataka and which have been in existence for not less than one year as on the date of application;

¶95

(ii) Consumer Co-operative Societies;

¶96

(iii) Other Co-operative Societies;

¶97

(iv) A Society or Association, not being a youth club or Youth Association, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1960);

¶98

(v)If eligible applicants from the categories (i) to (iv) are not available to run the fair price shops, in a particular area, then the authorised authority may grant Authorisation to open a fair price depot to individuals who are above 18 years of age, and who have passed 10^th standard, in the following order of priority, namely.–

¶99

(a)Persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes;

¶100

(b)Persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes;

¶101

14 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶103

(c) Un-employed Graduates;

¶104

(d) Physically handicapped persons;

¶105

(e) Ex-Servicemen;

¶106

(f) Others:

¶107

Provided that, out of the Authorisation for fair price depot issued to individuals during the official year by an authorised authority, a minimum of fifteen percent shall be reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and a minimum of five percent for persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes.

¶108

If person belonging to these categories are not available then such Authorisation may be issued to other persons.

¶109

Note.- (i) Co-operative Society means a Cooperative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959).

¶110

(ii) Only such Co-operative Society or Society or Association shall be considered which is financially sound (as verified from the audited accounts of the last three years) and has been functioning atleast for the last three years prior to the date of consideration of the application shall be considered.

¶111

(2) The Authorised Authority shall replace the existing dealer or fair price depot if its Authorisation is cancelled for any reason by granting an authorisation to an institution or a person in the order of priority specified under subclause (1).

¶112

*(Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall apply in respect of applications made by the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation)"

¶113

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶114

13.7. The Sub-Clause (1) of Clause 6 of the Order of 1992 starts with the phrase “subject to the provisions of Clause 5”. Thus the very opening statement made in Clause 6 of the Order of 1992, would make the grant of priority subject to Clause 5 of the Order of 1992, thereby indicating that the grant of priority would have to be considered only after the eligibility has been satisfied in terms of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992 and the grant of priority cannot be without consideration and or without satisfaction of the eligibility by an institution or a person in terms of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992.

¶115

13.8. Thus, to put it differently, if a person/entity were not to satisfy the condition of eligibility under Clause 5 of the Order of 1992, the question of grant of priority under Clause 6 of the Order of 1992, would not at all arise. It is only after the eligibility is satisfied under Clause 5 of the Order of 1992, that the priority in terms of sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause 6 of the Order of 1992 would have to be applied to the eligible candidates and a list as per priority under Clause 6 be prepared.

¶116

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶117

13.9. This being so for a simple reason that if a person were not to satisfy the requirement of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992, the question of priority among the persons by including a person who has not satisfied the eligibility would not arise. This can be clearly established by referring to sub-clause (a) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992, which indicates a prohibition for a person to be granted Authorisation if he has been convicted of an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. If a person convicted were to be given priority, then it will go against the very mandate of sub-clause (a) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992, which cannot be sustained.

¶118

13.10. Insofar as the present matter is concerned, the requirement of sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992, is that the applicant should be in possession of a suitable business premises and in case of wholesale dealers, godowns with sufficient space to store the essential commodities. Thus, the availability of a suitable business premise in case of a Fair Price Depot and the godown in case of a wholesale dealer is a pre-requisite, to be

¶119

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶120

eligible and to be considered for grant of an authorisation and it is only after the eligibility criteria is satisfied that the order of priority under Clause 6 of the Order of 1992, can be made applicable.

¶121

13.11. Hence I answer point No.1 by holding that eligibility under Clause 5 of the Order of 1992 is a pre-requisite for the purpose of granting priority under Clause 6 of the Order of 1992. If a person/entity were not eligible under Clause 5, the question of considering priority under Clause 6 would not arise.

¶122

14. Answer to Point No.2: Whether a residential premise would be a suitable business premise under sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992.

¶123

14.1. The issue that has arisen in the present case is also as to whether a residential premise would qualify to be a suitable business premise under sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992.

¶124

14.2. The submission of Sri. H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for the Petitioner, is that in so far as a municipal corporation or municipal authorities and/or areas which come under a town planning authority, there is a designation and reservation made for different zones as

¶125

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶126

residential, commercial, industrial, etc. But in the case of a village, there is no such zoning which has been made, and there is no particular area which can be called a commercial area where business could be carried out or no particular premise is designated as a business premise in a village.

¶127

14.3. His submission therefore is that insofar as a village is concerned, a residential premise could also be considered to be a business premise. It is in that background that this Court had directed respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, to file an affidavit as to whether a residential premise would be considered as a suitable business premises under the Order of 1992.

¶128

14.4. An affidavit has been filed on 17.3.2025 by the Joint Director, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, which reads as under:

¶129

“I, KUMUDA SHARAT, W/o Sharat B., aged about 47 years, working as Joint Director, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Siddarth Nagar, Mysuru today at Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

¶130

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶131

1. I am the Respondent No.1 in the above Writ Petition and as such I know the facts of the case well and I am swearing to this Affidavit.

¶132

2. I submit that on 11.07.2022 this Hon’ble Court has observed as follows:

¶133

“Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file an affidavit as to whether the residential premises could be considered as suitable business premises under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992.

¶134

List on 18.07.2022. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing”.

¶135

3. I submit that as per 5(b) of Karnataka Essential Commodities [Public Distribution System] Control Order 1992 which reads as follows:

¶136

“He should be in possession of suitable business premises, and in the case of wholesale dealers, godowns with sufficient space to store the essential commodities.”

¶137

4. I state that, the fair price shop applicant shall have suitable business premises as contemplated under the law.

¶138

WHEREFORE, I prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to taken the Affidavit on record in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶139

14.5. A reading of the Affidavit does not indicate any stand taken by the Joint Director as regards what is a suitable business premise except reproducing sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992.

¶140

20 -

¶141

NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶142

14.6. Learned Government Advocate submits that the Joint Director cannot interpret sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992 and as such, he has only placed the said sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992 on record in his Affidavit and leaves it to this Court to interpret the said sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992. It is in that background that it now falls on this Court to interpret sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992. The said Clause has been reproduced once again as under:

¶143

“ 5. Conditions for eligibility. - To be eligible for grant of Authorisation under Clause 3, an institution or person should satisfy the following conditions.-

¶144

(a) He should not have been convicted for an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 nor should a wholesale dealers licence or retail dealers licence issued to him under any order made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or an authorisation issued to him to run a fair price depot have been cancelled;

¶145

(b) He should be in possession of suitable business premises, and in the case of wholesale dealers, godowns with sufficient space to store the essential commodities;

¶146

(c) He should have sufficient funds in a bank account to purchase one month’s stock requirements.”

¶147

21 -

¶148

NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶149

14.7. A business premise normally would be a premise where business activities could be carried out. Insofar as a property coming under the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Authority and/or a Town Planning Authority, a business can be carried out only in a zone designated as commercial in nature and no business can be conducted in a residential zone or in a building coming under residential zone except those that may be specifically authorised in terms of the applicable zoning regulations.

¶150

14.8. Thus, unless a fair price depot is permitted to be run in a residential area, in any of those areas, a fair price depot could not be established in such a building coming under a residential zone. This of course would depend on the zoning regulations issued by each Municipal Authority or a Town Planning Authority and there cannot be any common factor which can be drawn out in relation thereto.

¶151

14.9. Suffice it to say, that if the business of a fair price depot can be run in a residential premise as per zoning regulation, then even a residence can be considered as a suitable business

¶152

22 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶153

premise in respect of that particular residential premises coming under that particular zone.

¶154

14.10. Insofar as a village is concerned, there being no zonal regulation which are applicable and there being no zoning or classification made as regards residential, commercial, industrial in a separate manner, all the premises come under a common zone irrespective of the use to which the said premise is put to.

¶155

14.11. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that insofar as an area where there are no zoning regulations, then even a residential premise being permitted to be used as a business premise can be considered as a suitable business premise under sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992. This being for another reason that if such an interpretation is not given to sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992, then no premises in a village would be eligible to be considered to be a suitable business premise since there is no classification of any premise as a business premise.

¶156

14.12. Of course, the requirement of making payment of property taxes as a commercial

¶157

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶158

establishment or otherwise would have to be adhered to by any person making use of a residential premise for commercial purpose and other concomitants thereof would also have to be followed. Thus, insofar as a village is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that even a residential premise would constitute a suitable business premise under sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992.

¶159

14.13. Coming back to the fact of the present matter, both the petitioner and respondent No.3 claim that they have suitable business premises, they having residential premise which could be used as a business premise and as such both of them would be eligible in terms of sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the Order of 1992.

¶160

14.14. In that view of the matter, what would be required to be examined is whether they do in fact satisfy this requirement or not. These aspects have not been considered by respondents in the several orders which have been referred to supra . There are no details as regards the nature of the property, the size of the property, the location of the property, suitable location within the village, the distance

¶161

24 -

¶162

NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶163

that a resident of the village would have to travel to reach the said premises to ascertain the inter se suitability of the premises.

¶164

14.15. Be that as it may, even otherwise once the eligibility under Rule 5 is satisfied, the priority under Rule 6 would have to be made applicable. There being no application under Clause 6 (1) (a) (i) to (iv) it is the priority under Clause 6 (1) (a) (v) which would be applicable and in terms of Sub-sub Clause (a) thereof, it is a person belonging to Schedule Caste who will get eligibility over a person not belonging to the Schedule Caste and in this case it being Respondent No.3.

¶165

Answer to point No. 3. Does the non-designation or reservation of a particular Fair Price Shop in Clause 6 of Order of 1992 impinge upon the right of the Petitioner to carry on business in terms of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India requiring any action to be taken?

¶166

15.1.The submission of Sri.H.C.Shivaramu., learned

¶167

counsel is that without the reservation of a particular area in terms of Clause (6) the priority which has been granted deprives the

¶168

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶169

Petitioner of the right to business under Article 19 (1)(g).

¶170

15.2.There is no particular challenge which has been

¶171

made to Rule 6 in these proceedings. In the absence of such challenge, those aspects cannot be looked into by this Court to make Rule 6 inapplicable to that of the case of the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 here.

¶172

15.3.This Court would have to apply the law as is by

¶173

considering Rule 6 as is and in terms thereof, the priority having been clearly defined, the same would apply to any village where a Fair Price Shop is proposed to be established and irrespective of the reservation made thereto, if the order of priority would indicate that some other person would get the priority, such person would have to be conferred the priority without reservation of that particular village for any particular category or community.

¶174

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶175

15.4.There being some substance in the submission made by the Sri. H C Shivaramu., learned counsel for the Petitioner, it would of course be for the Law Commission of Karnataka to look into these aspects and formulate suitable Rules to cater to the requirements of all concerned, so as to avoid these kind of litigations in future. Moreso, since the establishment and running of a Fair Price Shop though may be a dispute between the persons who have made an application for Authorisation has a impact on all the persons who are dependent on the Fair Price Shop and it is their interest which are required to be given paramount importance, consideration and preserve.

¶176

15.5.The Applicants also are required to know in advance if a particular fair price shop is reserved for any particular category, or else it would be the category who gets first priority who will be granted Authorisation at all fair price shops. If the intention of the legislature

¶177

27 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶178

and/or the state is to make available the benefit of the Authorisation to establish a fair price shop to all classes and categories of persons/entities, then suitable legislation is required in this regard. One of the methodologies that could be looked into is the reservation of the post of “President” and “vicePresident” under The Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, which provides for a methodology to arrive at reservation by rotating the roster. Similar arrangements could be made regarding the grant of Authorisation for running a fair price shop so that persons/entities belonging to all classes and categories in that village get the benefit of such Authorisation.

¶179

16. General directions;

¶180

16.1.Insofar as the eligibility is concerned, though Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 indicates suitable business premise, there is no definition

¶181

or requirement of such suitable business

¶182

28 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶183

premise which has been mentioned. Thereby, giving a wide discretion for the interpretation of the words “suitable business premise”. This can lead to opaque consideration of the applications by the concerned authorities. The applicants themselves not knowing what criteria they have to fulfill to be considered to be a suitable business premise.

¶184

16.2. It would therefore also be for respondent No.4

¶185

to formulate suitable guidelines in that regard.

¶186

16.3. The Principal Secretary of Food and Civil Supplies and the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies are directed to formulate suitable guidelines as to what would amount to “suitable business premise” in respect of the different location of the properties on the basis of whether it comes under metropolitan area, corporation area, municipal area, town municipal area, village panchayat area etc.,.

¶187

29 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶188

16.4. The number of cards which can be attached to a particular fair price report and on that basis the supply which the said fair price report would be entitled to, quantum of food grains and other material that would be required to be stored by the person who is granted Authorisation. The area required for such storage, the ventilation and all other safety requirements that are required to be followed and applied to such fair price depot and any other aspects that the Principal Secretary and the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies deem fit to consider and make part thereof so as to make those guidelines objectively applicable to all the premises to be considered for eligibility under Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5.

¶189

16.5. The same to be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this

¶190

30 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶191

order. The copy of the Rules to be placed on the file of this Court on or before 9.6.2025.

¶192

17. Answer to point No.3: What order?

¶193

In view of my above finding, I pass following;

¶194

ORDER

¶195

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶196

ii. The order dated 24.05.2018 passed by respondent No.4 in order No.CFS/Appeal/111/2016-17 at Annexure G and order dated 23.11.2016 passed by respondent No.1 in order No.FPS/24/2010-11 at Annexure-E are quashed.

¶197

iii. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to consider the eligibility of the petitioner and respondent No.3 in terms of the observation made hereinabove and in terms of Clause 5 (1) of the order of 1992, which shall be done within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a

¶198

31 - NC: 2025:KHC:12576 WP No. 24448 of 2018

¶199

certified copy of this order. Thereafter, priority to be applied on the basis of the category of the petitioner and respondent No.3 and a reasoned order passed thereafter.

¶200

iv. The Hon’ble Chairman of the Law Commission of Karnataka is requested to look into the above aspect and if thought fit to recommend such changes and/or the overhaul of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Control Order 1992 and 2016 as deemed fit.

¶201

v. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending IA’s does not survive for consideration. Hence, IA stands disposed of.

¶202

vi. Though the matter is disposed of, re-list on

¶203

9.6.2025 to report compliance .

¶204

SMJ/SR

¶205

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶206

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri. Manjunath v. the Deputy Commissioner (Food)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manjunath v. the Deputy Commissioner (Food)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri U M Ramesh Rao Vs Sri S Dinakar Rao

Sri. Ramdas Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanmuga Sundaram Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Subhashchandra Hegde Vs the Commissioner for Hindu Religious &

M/S Reddy Communication Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas

Mr. v. S. Parthasarathi Vs State of Karnataka