Sri Swamy H D Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Swamy H D Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: certiorari issued quashing the endorsement at Annexure-B; mandamus issued to respondent No.2 to consider the application at Annexure-C and C1 without reference to the age of the authorization holder and pass necessary orders within four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure-B) rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate transfer of the FPS authorization, on the ground that the deceased authorization holder was more than 65 years of age, is sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The age of the authorization holder is not relevant for considering an application for transfer of authorization on compassionate ground; it is the age of the transferee which is required to be considered.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, being aged about 35 years, is within the upper limit of the regularizations; on that basis the Court proceeded to dispose of the petition.

Key takeaways

Certiorari is issued and the endorsement at Annexure-B is quashed.ratio¶42
Mandamus issued to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's application at Annexure-C and C1 without reference to the age of the authorization holder and pass necessary orders within four weeks from receipt of copy of the order.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Distribution System — Fair Price Shop authorization — Compassionate transfer on death of holder — Petitioner's father held the Kaadabeguru Village FPS authorization since 1993-94 and died on 20.01.2026; respondent No.2 (Joint Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Mysore) rejected the son's transfer application by endorsement dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure-B) solely because the deceased holder was more than 65 years of age — Held: the age of the authorization holder is not relevant for a compassionate-transfer application; it is the age of the transferee which is required to be considered; petitioner, aged about 35 years, is within the upper limit of the regularizations — Endorsement quashed in certiorari; respondent No.2 directed to consider the application at Annexures-C and C1 (in terms of orders in WP No.33154/2024 and WP No.24893/2025) without reference to the holder's age and pass necessary orders within four weeks — Writ petition allowed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:27493 WP No. 16996 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 16996 OF 2026 (GM-PDS)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SWAMY H.D., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE DASAPPA, KAADABEGURU VILLAGE, KANDALIKE HOBLI, SARGUR TALUK, MYSORE - 571 121. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURYA DEV R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, MYSORE - 570 005. DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, DC OFFICE BUILDING, JLB ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27493 WP No. 16996 of 2026

HC-KAR

3. COMMISSIONER

OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, 5^TH FLOOR, MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.04.2026 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO. JDMY/FPS/SARGURU/ANUKAMPA/03/2025-26 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

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

ORAL ORDER

Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent

Nos.1 to 3

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

“WHEREFORE the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased

i. To issue a Writ of Certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the endorsement dated 06.04.2026 issued by Respondent No.2 in No. JDMY/FPS/SARGURU/ANUKAMPA/03/202526 at Annexure-B.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27493 WP No. 16996 of 2026

HC-KAR

ii. To issue a Writ of Mandamus to Respondent No.2 to transfer or issue authorisation in favour of the petitioner forthwith in terms of order dated 13.12.2024 and 17.09.2025 passed in WP No.33154/2024 and WP No.24893/2025 respectively produced at Annexure-C and Annexure-C1 without seeking any permission/order from the Respondent No.3 as the Respondent No.2 alone is competent to transfer the authorisation.

iii. To issue any other writ or order or direction to the Respondents deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

The petitioner’s father was issued an authorization in the year 1993-94 to supply essential commodities to the card holders of the FPD point at Kaadabeguru Village. The father having expired on 20.01.2026, the petitioner made an application for transfer of authorization on compassionate basis, which came to be rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner was more than 65 years as on the date of his death. It is in that background, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

This Court in several matters has held that the age of the authorization holder is not relevant for the purpose of

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27493 WP No. 16996 of 2026

HC-KAR

considering the application for transfer on compassionate ground. It is the age of the transferee, which is required to be considered.

In that view of the matter, the petitioner being aged about 35 years within the upper limit of the regularizations, this Court passes the following

ORDER

(a) The writ petition is allowed .

(b) The certiorari is issued. The endorsement at Annexure-B is quashed.

(c) The mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner at Annexure-C and C1 without reference to the age of the authorization holder and pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

PB