Allowed

Archana B N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2026WP/28309/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an endorsement rejecting a daughter's transfer of a fair price shop license. The court held that marital status excluding a daughter from compassionate grounds rights is discriminatory and invalid, and age of the deceased holder over 65 is not a bar.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement dated 07.07.2025 is quashed, and the Respondent is directed to consider the transfer and issue authorization within three months.

Archana B N Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:17625 WP No. 28309 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 28309 OF 2025 (GM-PDS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ARCHANA .B.N AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS W/O. RAGHAVENDRA .G.C R/AT. BELAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE BELAMARANAHALLI POST KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 133.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RITHISH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES GROUND FLOOR VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR - 563 101.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:17625 WP No. 28309 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

TAHASILDAR KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR - 563 101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 07.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN NO. DRA/CR/16/2025-26 AT ANNEXURE-D.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner in the captioned petition is aggrieved by

¶27

the rejection of petitioner's application vide impugned endorsement dated 07.07.2025 on the ground that as on the date of death, the original license holder namely Smt. S.M.Pushpa was aged more than 65 years and the second ground is that petitioner is a married daughter and therefore, she is not entitled to seek transfer of the license

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17625 WP No. 28309 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

of fair shop on compassionate grounds. The said endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is under

¶31

challenge.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶33

The issue as to whether a married daughter is entitled to seek transfer of authorization of a fair price shop on compassionate grounds is no longer res integra. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No.31745/2024,

¶34

had an occasion to consider an identical question. Upon an elaborate consideration of the governing provisions and constitutional mandate, the Coordinate Bench has

¶35

categorically held that there cannot be any discrimination between a married daughter and an unmarried daughter in the matter of grant or transfer of authorization. The Court has further observed that denial of such benefit solely on the ground of marital status is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:17625 WP No. 28309 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The said judgment clearly recognizes that marital status cannot be a ground to deprive an otherwise eligible legal heir from seeking transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds.

¶40

In the light of the authoritative pronouncement rendered by the Coordinate Bench in an identical set of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the sole ground on which the petitioner’s claim has been rejected, namely that the petitioner is a married daughter, cannot be sustained. Such a ground, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not constitute a disqualification in the eye of law.

¶41

5. Insofar as the objection relating to the age of

¶42

the original license holder, namely that she has crossed the age of 65 years, is concerned, the same also no longer survives for consideration, in view of a catena of judgments rendered by this Court, wherein it has been

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:17625 WP No. 28309 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

consistently held that such a ground cannot be put against

¶47

the legal heir seeking transfer on compassionate grounds.

¶48

Having regard to the consistent judicial view taken by this Court in matters relating to transfer of authorization of fair price shops, and in the absence of any legally sustainable ground to deny the petitioner’s claim, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 cannot be sustained in law. The said endorsement, being contrary to the settled principles laid down by this Court, is liable to be quashed.

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed .

¶51

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 07.07.2025 issued by respondent No.2, produced at Annexure-D, is hereby quashed.

¶52

(iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer of

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:17625 WP No. 28309 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

authorization of the fair price shop, strictly in the light of the law laid down by this Court in W.P. No.31745/2024 and other connected judgments.

¶57

(iv) Respondent No.2 shall issue

¶58

authorization in favour of the petitioner, if she is otherwise eligible, without insisting upon any permission or imposing any condition which runs contrary to the aforesaid judicial pronouncements. (v) 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.

¶59

(vi) No order as to costs.

¶60

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶61

CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Archana B N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana B N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Gangamata Devi Kshetra Vs the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate

Sri. Naveen N Vs the State of Karnataka

Managing Committee Vs the State of Karnataka

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Smt a D Lavanya Prasad Vs Smt Uma Devaraj

Sri M v Narasimha Prasad Vs Office of the Insurance Ombudsman (Karnataka)