Sri R Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO. RPR/CR.06/2021-22 DATED 02/08/2025 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D TO THE WP.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:1079 WP No. 38552 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petitioner has authorisation to operate a Fair Price Shop No.116 at O. T. Road, Shivamogga. The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's order dated 02.08.2025 [Annexure-D] . The second respondent by this order has cancelled the petitioner's authorisation in No.39/2017-18 and forfeited security deposit of Rs.10,000/with directions to the petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs.39,613/-.

¶37

Mr. B. M. Siddappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court through the antecedent circumstances, submits that the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court with the writ petition in W.P.No.16976/2021 when a similar order was passed by the first respondent and that this Court has intervened quashing the first respondent's order restoring the proceedings to the

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:1079 WP No. 38552 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

the first respondent to reconsider the petitioner's appeal.

¶42

As regards the cause for the present

¶43

petition, the learned counsel submits that after this Court's order dated 16.12.2022 in the writ petition in W.P.No.16976/2021, the Deputy Commissioner has restored the matter to the second respondent once again for consideration and that the second respondent has reiterated the findings notwithstanding the fact that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation that he has illegally accessed the credentials and logged in to show supply of rice and wheat has ended in a 'B' report.

¶44

Mr. Sidharth Baburao, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who is permitted to accept notice for respondents, is heard in the light of this grievance, and the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner,

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:1079 WP No. 38552 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

has the benefit of the appellate remedy under Clause17 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities [Public Distribution System] Control Order, 1992 [for short, 'the Control Order' ], and that the petitioner must avail such appellate remedy against the second respondent's order. In rejoinder, Mr. B M Siddappa submits that the petitioner's remedy under Clause-17 of the Control Order may not be efficacious because the Deputy Commissioner, while restoring the matter to the second respondent for reconsideration, has prejudged the allegations against the petitioner.

¶49

The second respondent has elaborately referred to the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 10.06.2024 detailing the number of opportunities extended by the Deputy Commissioner and the reason that has prevailed for remanding. This Court is of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner has not prejudged the issue, and therefore, the petitioner must avail remedy under Clause-17 of the Control

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:1079 WP No. 38552 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Order. However, this Court must hasten to add that if in the event the petitioner avails the appellate remedy under Clause-17 of the Control Order, the first respondent must consider the petitioner's case against the decision to cancel the authorisation not only in the light of the outcome in the criminal proceedings but also other grounds that the petitioner may urge and independent of any observation in the order dated 10.06.2024.

¶54

The next question for this Court's consideration is whether the second respondent's order dated 02.08.2025 must be given effect to when this petition is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail appellate remedy in the light of this Court's observation . This Court is of the view that if the second respondent's order is given effect to, the appellate remedy would be rendered nugatory. Therefore, there must be protection to the petitioner for a reasonable period which would enable the

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:1079 WP No. 38552 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

petitioner to prosecute the appeal effectively. As such, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

[a] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, subject to all just exceptions in law, to avail the appellate remedy under Clause-17 of the Control Order observing that if the petitioner avails such remedy, the first respondent [ the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga ] shall consider the petitioner's grievance independent of any observation in the order dated 10.06.2024 in the earlier proceedings.

¶61

[b] The second respondent's order dated 02.08.2025 [Annexure-D] shall remain suspended for a period of eight [8] weeks from today with liberty to the petitioner to seek continuance of the interim order in the appeal proceedings.

¶62

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶63

RB

Sri R Manjunath v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Manjunath v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Malamma Vs the Canara Bank

Sri. Natarajshastry Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri N S Nagaraju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Radhakrishna Urs H N Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Chuna Rafi Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Sharukh Khan Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf