Basareddy Vs State of Karnataka

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

¶15

THE JOINT DIRECTOR FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:262 WP No. 17899 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶21

THE TAHASILDAR MADHUGIRI TALUK, MADHUGIRI - 572 132.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SPECIAL NOTIFICATION DATED 02.08.2022/12.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE R2 IN NO.FSD/FPD/CR-68/2022-23 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The only grievance of the petitioner is that by impugned notification dated 02.08.2022/12.08.2022 produced at Annexure-F, respondent No.2/Joint Director, Food and Civil Supplies has proposed to reduce 108 ration cards which were earlier allotted to the petitioner to be issued for the purpose of accommodating an area coming under Thippapura Thanda.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:262 WP No. 17899 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the said order is arbitrary without any reasoning. He also relies upon the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, produced at Annexures- J and K passed in W.P.No.3514/2022 dated 21.02.2022 and W.P.No.7358/2022 dated 20.04.2022 to submit that the representation given by the petitioner as per Annexure-H needs to be considered.

¶33

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submits that the notification at Annexure-F has been issued in the interest of residents of Thippapura Thanda. In furtherance to the proviso to Clause No.11(2) of PDS Control Order, 2016 which vests with the authorized authority power to relax the limit upto 100 cards for a fair price shop depot in the rural area. Said order is passed keeping in mind the larger public interest and the same cannot be found fault with.

¶34

On a query by this Court as to the reasons for issuance of the said notification, She fairly submits that except mentioning the convenience of the residents of Thippapura, no reasons are assigned with regard to incapacity of petitioner, if any to serve the need.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:262 WP No. 17899 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

5. Heard and perused the records.

¶39

Clause 11(2) of PDS Control Order, 2016 reads as

¶40

under:

¶41

11(2). The number of ration cards assigned to a fair price depot under sub-clause (1) shall not be less than 500 for a fair price depot in a rural area and not less than 800 for a fair price depot in an urban area:

¶42

Provided that the Authorised Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the limit upto 100 cards for a fair price depot in a rural area if the fair price depot is to serve the needs of an isolated settlement or layout where the number of ration cards is below the limit prescribed viz., special area like tribal hadis/tandas/gollarahatti etc.

¶43

Admittedly, petitioner was authorized to run the fair price shop and was allotted 455 cards. By the impugned notification respondent No.2-Joint Director has called for applications for allotment of 108 ration cards in respect of fair price shop in Thippapura Thanda. The said notification merely states that "for the convenience of the residents or beneficiaries of Tippapura Thanda", the impugned order is passed. The said notification does not indicate any reason whatsoever with regard to incapacity or incapability of the petitioner, if any, to cater to the needs of the said Thippapura

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:262 WP No. 17899 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Thanda. In fact the petitioner is also operating from the very same village. The impugned notification at Annexure-F therefore lacks reasoning as required to be provided in writing under proviso to Clause No.11(2) of PDS Control Order, 2016 extracted herein above. Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) Petition is allowed.

¶50

(ii) Impugned notification dated 02.08.2022/12.08.2022 at Annexure-F is quashed.

¶51

(iii) Matter is remitted to respondent No.2/Joint Director, Food and Civil Supplies to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the requirement of furnishing detailed reasoning in writing to reduce the number of ration cards which are already allotted to the petitioner. Such orders shall be passed within an outer limit of Sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:262 WP No. 17899 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

(iv) Till disposal of the said representation or passing of the order, no precipitative action shall be taken and the petitioner be permitted to run the fair price shop with the already allotted ration cards.

¶56

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶57

SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Basareddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basareddy 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

Kushappa Mahadevappa Nalavadi Vs Pandappa Mahadevappa Nalavadi Deceased by His Legal Heirs Smt Shekavva W/O Pandappa Nalavadi

Smt. Geetha Vs Sri. Yellappa

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri Nyatha Reddy

Kumbara Sangha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Suprith Gowda H.R Vs the Managing Director

Sri.M.K.Putta Boregowda Vs State of Karnataka