Latha N C Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 PRAYING TOI) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.02.2026 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN NO. AT ANNEXURE - D AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner in the captioned writ petition calls in question the legality and correctness of the endorsement dated 26.02.2026 issued by the second respondent, produced at Annexure–D, whereby the application submitted by the petitioner seeking transfer of the Fair Price Shop licence has been rejected. The rejection is founded on two grounds, namely, that as on the date of death of the original licence holder – Chamegowda, he had crossed the age of 65 years, and that the petitioner, being the daughter of the deceased licence holder, had not completed SSLC.

¶24

This Court is constrained to observe that the reasons assigned by the second respondent are wholly untenable in light of the settled position of law. It is no longer res integra that while considering transfer of a Fair Price Shop licence on

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22893 WP No. 13242 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

compassionate grounds to Class–I legal heirs, insistence on educational qualification, such as completion of SSLC, is not a sine qua non. Equally, the age of the deceased licence holder at the time of his death does not constitute a disqualification so as

¶28

to deny consideration of the claim of the legal heir.

¶29

Despite the consistent pronouncements of this Court on the aforesaid aspects, the second respondent has proceeded to reiterate the very grounds which have been disapproved by this Court, thereby rendering the impugned endorsement legally unsustainable. In an identical fact situation, this Court in W.P.No.5401/2025 has categorically held that neither the absence of SSLC qualification on the part of the legal heir nor the fact that the deceased licence holder had crossed 65 years would disentitle the legal heir from seeking transfer of licence. The present case stands squarely covered by the said decision.

¶30

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned endorsement at Annexure–D cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:22893 WP No. 13242 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

second respondent to reconsider and process her application in accordance with the law laid down by this Court.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. The writ petition is allowed ;

¶37

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 26.02.2026 issued by the second respondent, vide Annexure–D, is hereby quashed;

¶38

iii. The second respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer of Fair Price Shop authorisation, strictly in terms of the law laid down by this Court in W.P.No.5401/2025 and other binding precedents, without insisting upon SSLC qualification or treating the age of the deceased licence holder as a disqualification;

¶39

iv. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶40

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶41

HDK

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Latha N C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latha N C 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

Prestige Projects Private Limited Vs Mr K L a Padmanabhasa

Sunil @ H R Sunil Kumar @ H R Harish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

B S Tameem Ahmed Khan Vs the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.

Sri. M. Ramesh Naik Vs Commissioner

M/S. Global Waste Management Cell Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nagesh Chakenahalli Huchhegowda Vs Union of India