Allowed¶92

Shabana Anjum v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2025WP/5919/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair price shop authorization; compassionate transfer of authorization; Public Distribution System Karnataka; endorsement dated 13.01.2025 quashed; educational qualification and age criteria not insisted for compassionate transfer; Food and Civil Supplies Hassan; writ under Articles 226 and 227; reconsideration within 12 weeks; GM-PDS; Suriya Begum; Shabana Anjum.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned endorsement dated 13.01.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 (Joint Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Hassan District) and a direction to Respondent No.3 to reconsider the petitioner's application for transfer of authorization, bearing in mind the observations made in the order, within 12 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier. ¶92

Shabana Anjum Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶92

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 13.01.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 rejecting transfer of the fair price shop authorization from the petitioner's late mother Suriya Begum to the petitioner is liable to be quashed, and whether Respondent No.3 should be directed to reconsider the transfer application.

¶36

Court's answer

The issue in the writ petition stood covered by the judgments rendered by co-ordinate Benches of this Court, and the Court deemed it appropriate to pass a similar order.

¶83

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶91

Key takeaways

The impugned endorsement dated 13.01.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 stands quashed.ratio¶92
Respondent No.3 is directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order, within 12 weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.ratio¶95

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M. Nagaprasanna, J.), W.P. No. 5919 of 2025 (GM-PDS), order dated 01.04.2025: Shabana Anjum challenged the endorsement dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure-G) issued by Respondent No.3 - Joint Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Hassan District - rejecting transfer of the fair price shop authorization (Shop No.24, authority no.10549-24, authorization no.76/92-93) standing in the name of the petitioner's late mother Suriya Begum to the petitioner. Holding that the issue stood covered by co-ordinate Bench judgments (W.P.No.23209 of 2022, disposed of on 28.11.2022, which had followed R. Gayathri (W.P.No.8586/2006), Smt. B.V. Gangarathnamma (W.P.No.22448/2015) and Hemanth Kumar B O (W.P.No.17048/2021) on transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds without insistence on educational qualification or age), the Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned endorsement, and directed Respondent No.3 to reconsider the application in light of the observations within 12 weeks.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:13635 WP No. 5919 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 5919 OF 2025 (GM-PDS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHABANA ANJUM

¶10

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O LATE SYED FAZIL, D/O LATE SYED NAZEER, R/AT 1^ST CROSS, MM ROAD, ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD FAIZAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:13635 WP No. 5919 of 2025

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER (FOOD)

¶20

HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573214.

¶21

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573214

¶22

TAHSILDAR,

ARASIKERE TALUK,

ARASIKERE-573103

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SPOORTHI V., HCGP)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT, DATED 13.01.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.03 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN, REJECTING THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER FOR TRANSFER OF AUTHORIZATIONFROM THE PETITIONERS MOTHER, LATE SURIYA BEGUM TO THE PETITIONER TO RUN THE FAIR PRICE SHOP AT SHOP NO.24, AUTHORITY NO. 10549-24, AUTHORISATION NO. 76/92-93 AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:13635 WP No. 5919 of 2025

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Heard Sri.Mohammad Faizan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Spoorthi V., the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶34

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶35

following prayer:

¶36

"i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement vide no. �.ಆ�ಾ / �ಾ.ನ / �.ಅ�/19/2024-25 dated 13.01.2025 vide Annexure-G, issued by the Respondent No.3 - The Joint Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Hassan District, Hassan, rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for transfer of authorization from the petitioner's mother, Late Suriya Begum to the petitioner to run the fair price shop no.24, authority no.10549-24, authorization no.76/92-93.

¶37

b) to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondent No.03 & 04 The Joint Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Hassan District. Tahsildar, Arasikere Taluk, Arasikere to consider/transfer the authorization standing in the name of Suriya begum vide ANNEXURE-A to the petitioner and to continue to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution to the card holders attached to the fair price shop of Suriya begum as was being done prior to the death for Suriya begum.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:13635 WP No. 5919 of 2025

¶40

c) to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case by allowing the above Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and eqyity."

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶42

that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.23209 of 2022 ,

¶43

disposed of on 28.11.2022 , wherein this Court has held as follows:

¶44

“ The petitioner is before this Court calling in question, the rejection of the application of the petitioner seeking transfer of the authorization on compassionate grounds. The ground on which it is turned down is that, the father of the petitioner at the time of his death was aged 80 years. It is not in dispute that the authorization in favour of the father was subsisting at the time of his death.

¶45

Heard Sri. Shivaramu H.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Patel, HCGP appearing for the respondents and perused the materials on record.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8586/2006 disposed on 21.11.2008, W.P.No.22448/2015 disposed on 21.09.2016 and W.P.No.17048/2021 disposed on 20.09.2021.

¶47

(i) This Court in the case of R. GAYATHRI Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES) AND OTHERS¹ has held as follows:

¶48

"The petitioner's husband held a Kerosene Oil Hawker licence under the provisions of the Essential

¶49

1 W.P.No.8586/2006 disposed on 21.11.2008

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:13635 WP No. 5919 of 2025

¶52

Commodities Licensing Order. 1986 valid upto 31.12.2003 and on his death on 8.9.2003, having made an application for transfer of the said licence, on compassionate ground in terms of the notification dated 3.12.1984, which when refused by order dated 4.5.2006 Annexure B, on the premise that the notification dated 12.8.2003 Annexure C prescribed minimum educational qualification of 10th standard, has presented this petition to quash Annexure B and to declare Annexure C as not applicable to the petitioner and the like, as also for a mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to grant licence in petitioner's favour.

¶53

The petition is opposed by filing statement objections dated 18.12.2006 of the respondent inter alia contending that on and after coming into force of the notification dated 12.8.2003 Annexure C issued under Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992, prescribing a pass in the 10th standard as eligibility to run a Fair Price Shop and as the petitioner's qualification was a pass in 9th standard falling short of eligibility criteria, the claim of the petitioner for grant of fresh authorization on compassionate ground was not acceptable and that the order impugned is well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order impugned, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification Annexure C under Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control (Amendment) Order 2003 dated 12.8.2003 prescribing pass in 10th standard as eligibility to run Fair Price Shop in a particular area for the purpose of grant of authorization to open a fair price depot, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner since what was sought by the petitioner was a grant of fresh authorization to carry on business of retail vending of kerosene which her husband was carrying on in terms of Essential Commodities Order which did not prescribe any educational qualification. The State Govt. failed to notice that the Amendment Order 2003 Annexure C would have application to fresh candidates applying pursuant to a notification issued under CL(4) of PDS Control Order, 1992, fixing the eligibility as pass in 10th standard amongst other conditions. These conditions had no bearing on the claim of the petitioner for grant of fresh authorization on

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13635 WP No. 5919 of 2025

¶55

compassionate ground in terms of circular dated 21.7.1995. In that view of the matter, the order impugned is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed

¶56

In the result, the petition is allowed in part. The order dated 4.5.2006 Annexure B is quashed and it is hereby declared that the notification dated 12.8.2003 Annexure C is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. A mandamus is issued directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law, in any event, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶57

(ii) This Court in the case of SMT. B.V. GANGARATHNAMMA Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) AND OTHERS² has held as follows:

¶58

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 17.01.2015 impugned at Annexure-G to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondents No.1 and 2 to transfer the authorization and licence in favour of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 25.07.2014 passed in W.P.No.33639/2014.

¶59

The petitioner is claiming transfer of authorization for distribution of the Kerosene in Licence No.3/91 which had been issued to the husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner died on 21.01.2014 and as such the petitioner had sought transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. At the first instance, when the endorsement dated 28.05.2014 was issued to the petitioner rejecting her claim on the ground that she does not satisfy the educational criteria and inasmuch as she had not completed her matriculation, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.33639/2014. This Court by the order dated 25.07.2014 on taking note of the order dated 21.11.2008 passed in W.P.No.8586/2006 as also the order dated 24.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.18787/2014, had set aside the endorsement and directed that the application of the petitioner be reconsidered. On reconsideration the impugned endorsement dated 17.01.2015 is issued wherein the application is once again rejected by stating that the

¶60

2 W.P.No.22448/2015 disposed on 21.09.2016

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:13635 WP No. 5919 of 2025

¶63

petitioner does not satisfy the educational criteria of having completed the VII standard. It is in that view the petitioner is before this Court seeking benefit of the earlier order passed by this Court.

¶64

Learned Government Advocate would however point out that the issue that had arisen for consideration in W.P.No.33639/2014 was with regard to the insistence of matriculation qualification and not relating to the VII Standard. Hence, it is contended that the very benefit granted under the said order cannot be extended unless the petitioner satisfies the condition of completing the VII standard.

¶65

Though such contention is put forth by the learned Government Advocate, what is necessary to be noticed is that this Court in the earlier order had relied on the order dated 21.11.2008 passed in W.P.No.8586/2006. What had arisen for consideration in the said petition is as to whether the minimum educational qualification prescribed for making application for grant of authorisation could be insisted upon in respect of the application filed seeking transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. In that regard this Court had held that the educational qualification prescribed can only be insisted upon prospectively in respect of the fresh applications filed seeking authorization and cannot be made applicable to transfer of authorisation on compassionate grounds in respect of the authorisation which had been issued earlier.

¶66

If that be the position, when an application is considered for transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds either insisting on the matriculation or the lesser educational qualification of VII standard would not be justified as otherwise the very purpose of considering an application for compassionate transfer would be defeated. Therefore the endorsement dated 17.01.2015 is quashed.

¶67

A direction is issued to the first respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner and transfer the authorization which stood in the name of the husband of the petitioner to the name of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.

¶68

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:13635 WP No. 5919 of 2025

¶71

(iii) This Court in the case of HEMANTH KUMAR B O Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHER³ has held as follows:

¶72

The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.17131/2018 disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 8.2.2019, copy whereof is at Annexure-F; at para Nos.9 & 10 of the order, said judgment reads as under:

¶73

“From close scrutiny of the aforesaid paragraph, it is evident that in W.P.No.22448/2015 which was decided by an order dated 21.09.2016, it has been held that the requirement with regard to having passed SSLC and restriction of age is not applicable when the transfer of authorization is sought on compassionate ground. The aforesaid finding has admittedly attained finality and is binding on the respondents as they have not challenged the same either by filing a review petition or by filing a writ appeal. Therefore this Court finds no reason to take a different view.

¶74

In the result, the impugned endorsement dated 23.03.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to take note of the application filed by the petitioner and to consider the same for transfer of the authorization on compassionate ground as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.”

¶75

The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat likecases alike and if relief is granted to litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶76

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed; impugned endorsement dated 03.09.2021 at

¶77

3 W.P.No.17048/2021 disposed on 20.09.2021.

¶78

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:13635 WP No. 5919 of 2025

¶80

Annexure-B is quashed; second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s application without reference to age and qualification.

¶81

Time for compliance is two months.

¶82

No costs".

¶83

In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgments rendered by a co-ordinate Benches (supra), I deem it appropriate to pass the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

i. The Writ petition is allowed.

¶86

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 17.06.2022 issued by respondent No.2, bearing No. DRA (1)/CR/19/2022-23 is quashed.

¶87

iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner for transfer of authorization bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order, within 12 weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.”

¶88

In the light of the order passed by the

¶89

this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:

¶90

ORDER

¶91

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed;

¶92

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 13.01.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 stands quashed;

¶93

10 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:13635 WP No. 5919 of 2025

¶95

(iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order, within 12 weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Shabana Anjum v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabana Anjum 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 Brundavan Sports and Cultural Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Kum. Navya H K Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Schliff Maschinnen Fabrik Vs Canara Bank

M/S Advaith Aerospace Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Pradeep Kumar Y Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

H Rajeev Vs the State of Karnataka