High Court Karnataka High Court

Rajanna vs Deputy Commissioner on 3 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Rajanna vs Deputy Commissioner on 3 July, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE arm; caum' op KARNATAKA, BAN'L".r:ALC)P E'% ' '

DATED THIS THE am' m-*z"o:~i'<:.1uig¥    
BEFORE   ' 'T  A' 
THE HOWBLE MR. .}USf'I£:f';E_ K.S'R§:'E9H:AR"P{Ab" 

wp.Nc.26s7 o.r ;;ao7r,..«g@ v . 
BETWEEN    , 

3, RAJANNA -- V 5
8,10 SANNAIAH   é , V
AGED ABOUT 4.2 was    
ALANAHALLI V.I,:;:,AGE=:    

HI} KOTETQ _ _    .
MYSORE;  V      PETITIONER

{By Sri:  N__F3I;IA}5;'I'J.vA{:)"J{)tZ1'[T§'F.¥?j % )
AND: 

1 DEHJTY €:o..1yzM'ISs1 0NER
§.»1-Ysom; DIST  ..... .. »

" V'  _ i\éYS1€5RI§§ 

 ' _:+:xE§:LrT1'JE.,o~FF1CER
- '1'=s:;y PANCEAYATH
'HEGGA,9_'A DEVANAKOTE
H" D '}{O'I'E
MYSQFEE 9131'  Rfispommams

 ..1(B.§: s;;§.;.£fi_c;eefl1a Mr:1t1o11,AGA FOR R3. 35 R2 )

 §THIS WP. IS FILED PRAYING TC) QUASH THE OFFICIAL

.:fV¥EIv§GRANDUM ISSUED BY R2 DT. 29.12.2006 VIBE ANNEXA.

Ck



This Writ petition is eeming on for hearing tt1is4vz;iét3r_L~i;he
Court made the following:- 7  --  
ORDER

The petitioner is running a fair.:p1″i=:te& V’

Village, Hampapurga Hebii, H.B. _ ‘i’1i€

respondent passed the impugneel. _ ez:e1er £1″: dated

29.12.05. It is stated i11__the o:f(;ieV 1Ai~.__i:h:§.9_.V’i; t1ie”‘pefi1;jr:>ner has
committed illegalities in d£SL¥§i)11tion?§.of éfiee goods and that:

the yeople of the are agi’£ai;r§(i, te” peace, it is

directed {fiat the fair price goods shall be

thmugh e’_pric_:e ‘ in Indixanagar (mobiie

_v:1istrib31j-f.i’e&nA. age1icg.{) .:V :’.f’he order also states that this

7:; rrarv “distribution of fair price goods through mobile

agene}*’___ie sfifch’ period the Bepnty Commissioner takes

.3ppro§riate__” ‘ae{ien in the matter. The petitioner feeiing

-. , .1A’A”a§.v§Ti€§.%ed zbylthe ixnpugned order seeks tn quash the same on

“‘t};ie that the second respondem: is not a competent

to Ievoke the license of the fair price shay or pass any

erders in relation to fair price shop.

2. On stem scmfiny of the facts, it discloses that thé”oI*dcr

gassed by the competsnt authority cannct

the mterestgof the petrmoner smcc 1t 1s Food and ‘C;v11Vt3upp11e.s_

Depaxtment that supplies goocis ta” £113″ ftjr

distribution. The second respondent 101%} _–?,t)” pay”

% said supplies. The Deputy Comttigissioticr.

authority to revoke the licrrgse. the shop of
the petitioner will be in flé:the1:i£mx’ds, the shop of

the pefifioner is 1’L3__:icgal of goods by Eh:

Food Sugglies disrupted. The oreier thercfcre

does not . of the fair yrice shop of the

petitiznzag-:r”iz1. m.aj3;fier. in that View of the matter, the pefifion

_ sis’ ~ .

Sd/”9 –

juége