IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28%: DAY OF AUGUST 2009
BEFORE J
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE A Tjjf %
W.P.No.6899/2009 * A " A. "
BETWEEN: « %
Sri.Chowda1'ah,
S/o.Bommaiah,
Aged about 52 years.
R/at House No.85/2, ._ .
Channegowdana Doddi, '
MaddurTa1uk, ~
Mandya District. ., ..PETITIONER
(By sr:.K.v.;i\IaraILsi'nT;:A1azjV;v.Ad»{;)" ~
AND:
1. Sri.H0n;1'b'aiah.M;», ., _ V' V
S/'='0.Sri.D.2{éidaiah., AAAAA
Aged 42, years _ A' = .
R/a'; Tcharmeggwdkagiawdoddi,
Maddizr"I'pufr1, '"P.'.Iad Taiuk,
A"A..Ma11dya' DiStI'iCf." '
- «The Deputy 'Commissioner,
_ :D_istr1'ct,
% '~.Ma.nd},ura..__ ..RESPONDEN"I'S
. 'V.{'.V1f3_*,r"',A:vS'}v'i_.i'--i.C.Shivaramu, Adv., for R-1; Srri:.KSa0jini
fj.__VMutVham'1a, AGA., for R-2)
L/.
ah:-Hie.
beiongingAScheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. He, therefore,
submitted that the impugned notification cannot
in law. He also submitted the authorisation if
of the first respondent also cannot be su'stai'n_ed'
therefore, submitted that the impugned-priotificatit;n”andl’;
the impugned order are liable to
6. As against thisgtirie iVea;*ned__c:otinsel for the first
respondent submitted that has not been
challenged at Vitseiif.Vva.nd””the petitioner has
approached.~th’isiiftr-‘fter’.V’th.’eorder} is passed in favour of
the first resvponderitljvanfdi writ petition cannot be
entertained: that, adequate representation
has«.not persons belonging to the Scheduled
Caste or Taiuk. Further he submitted that
,_the No.34993/2004 is not applicable to the
the” present case as the facts in W.P. No.34993/2004»
44:=’.Varepltotallfodiiferent from the facts in the present case. Further
subniitted that the petitioner has invested huge amount
[2
and he beiongs to Scheduled Caste and he has been running ab!
fair price shop since about one year and if he is
will be put to great hardship and therefore?”
notification and also the impugned
interference.
7. The learned AfG.A.VAr…sii’p–ported ‘ ‘the. .iinpugned
notification and also the .
8. I have ?cai{ef¢iiiy:3considered”th’c~-submissions made
by the learned for
9. The” for my consideration is,
whether the n’otiii-cnation and the impugned order
for interference? ‘ ———- ~ ”
relevant to note, Clause 6(1){b) of the
V”v:’ ‘.VVI{»a:’11atai{-a Essential Commodities {PBS} Control Order reads
‘fo,Ixiows4:–
L/
“6(1)[b] Fair Price Depots —
(1) Karnataka Food and Civil u
Corporation;
(ii) Consumer Co–operative Societies; V
[iii] Other Co-operative Societieeiil
(iv) A Society or Association,d’r1o’.t.A_lloeirig.,a~.
Club or Youth Assoeiation, “registei:ed«:.__tmder
the Karnataka Societieel”RegistratioziActfi 1960
(Karnataka Act jivpf 195o)e.a A A’
If eligible applicants to (iv) are
not available ‘:f3″1*ic-ed shops, in a
authority may
-o’pen—–a.»”§fair price depot to
grant ailthort
indiviciualsiwhci years of age, and
who have passedtseveritlti’ in the following
order of priority,4″fiarI1el§’:-
[aj to Scheduled Castes;
(bA)’PVe»reor1Vs befongihg’ to Scheduled Tribes;
(0) Uhemployed’_~»Gradi;1ates;
id) Physically vl1*ax;’1?;iieappeci persons:
. . Exg Servicefiiaen;
c {:1 Others;
L2
Provided that, out of the authorisation for fair price
depot issued to individuals during the official year__b_y
an authorised authority, a minimum of
percent shall be reserved for persons
Scheduled Castes and a minimum of S’ 1
persons belonging to Scheduled:T’ribes.g
If person belonging to these’—ca’tegori,es; it
available then such authorisation rnaybe to
other persons.” K d
11. It is clear from if eligiblpelgjapplicants are not
available from Categories {1f}”to..[iv)’,’- theiilonltyitg’ the authorised
Authority can g1*ant’eaieifliorisation in favour of the others like
persons belonging to” Caste, Scheduled Tribe etc.
This Co,r_«1}lg1:’ltlV in w.P;Ne,p34933/2004 has held, if a shop is
re’served for’«.gS:cl:eduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it
eontravenesulthe-. proviso to clause 6[l)(b) of the PDS Control
l°»._O4rder. thecepresent case, the shop at Channegowdanadoddi
has been reserved for the Scheduled Caste and
it”ll’fj~app’licVations have been invited from the persons belonging to flue
L2
Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the impugned notification.___and
also the impugned order granting authorisat’i.on-dgi’-_i’;e,
Annexures ‘B’ and ‘C’ cannot be sustained in 1aw.’l_”
12. Accordingly, the writg.p_etition:”is a11o$2sfed’v
impugned notification and also’. imp1rgne=d at V’
Annexures ‘B’ and ‘C’ are Liberty is reserved
to the second respondent toV_vta1V(e”_’ae»tiondin’:accordance with
law as early as
Sd/-
EUDGE