SETWEEN:
'i
EN THE HIGH COUIQT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY. 2008
: BEFORE:
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATEL
CHANORAKANT
are SHARANAPPA PANCHAKATTL
AGE 50 YEARS ~
#213 C18 COLONY "
GULBARGA
REVANSIDDAPPA .
SIG ESHIVRAYA BEERNALH _ L
AGE 46 YEARS T '
RIO TAJ SULTANPUR
GULBARGA
D!GAi\k'iSAR sA:<:f3APmg
AGE_5£3YEARf.$._» H . _ --
RIO QHA-NVEER wrxzaaab 1.
GULBARGA - "
BASAWAF:-A4 - -_
SfiG--$HARANAPPM<ALLUR
me 55 YEARS ~
- RIO ESEQDAPUR c:o'L'css*»i'a*'
V " ~ . _.GULBA.R:3_A" «
" :;j'~._A'r-«so:
V éw ASHWM wto GANESH KAWALE
' ' * --!'-33E 30 YE-ZAR8, occ; HOUSEHOLD
PETTHONERS
' (BY s:s.1f_r'fMA5:_.1.u' L2!g_ .*~{TE.xAs\~I, ADVC}CATE,)
RIO 1131783, BE!-{!ND PRIYADARSHIM
WOMENS COLLEGE, VIDYANAGAR
GULBARCM
THE COMWSSIONER
W.P.N0. 3623 of 2006 (GM-PBS)
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER
AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALOREJ31
3 THE DIRECTOR
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BAI'~iGALORE~0'I
4 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GULBARGA DISTRICT
GULBARGA--0I
5 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES V' »
AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTII:IE'I~iT_
MINI VIQHANA souom .
GULBARGA-81 V ._
V '; :é;2é_PmoENTs
(SRI.H.S.CHANDRAMOULI'ADV. s=;'<jII2'I§1'~} _ "
BY SRIMKUMAR, AGA"FC3,Fi2 IGR5} "
THIS WRIT PE.TiT_IC§N IS FIILED-UINIDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITLIIIQ_N"OF IIIIDIA, '~PRA_YING"'TQv'OUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER AT AI\INEX.G.=.DT. 26,'I2.20I35 PASSED BY R4, AND QUASI-I THE
IMPUGNED ORDER AT A'Ié£IS£E}(§I4. DT, 'I'G;2.;'-IOCI6 PASSED BY R5.
THIS WRITPETITIDNIIIICOMDETS ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY,' TI-IE jCOI;.IRT"MADE THE FOLLOWING?
. . . . .
assaiiing the correctnacs of the
fl°.'A.in:ppgn<;d .. dated 26.12.2005 passed by 4&1
"Vida Annexure~G and the order dated
passed by the 5"' respondent vide Annexure~H,
~h.#’Je prwented this writ petition.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant
writ petifion is that, they are Kerosene A. H
converted Retailers who are holding
Kamateka Essential Commodities ipns; semi
1992, from 1987 onwards to .eel.l Keroeene retell V.
Gulbarga proper and they are ijecna;g;5g flduties
sincerely and honestly the
fourfii respondeum::.§;i’ mandatory
provisions laid Karnetaka
Eseentialv~x3omnfreTdi;Eiee(Ffifiei order 1992, vvithout
issuing nvoiiee. the Control order and
withoutAVcallinQ”fo;r the ep_olicetione, has issued impugned
icumluhaeafioneto respondent vide Annexure-G
on the Thesis of Annexure–G has
_granie«d euiherizetion to the first respondent, without
ring {he procedurm as envisaged under the Control
lllolrderi 1992. The said authorization given by the fourth
it ‘ A “‘*:VV:res’r3ondent in favour of first rapondent without calling for
any application is not juefifiable and it is liable to be set
-4-
eside. Having regard to these backgrounds, petitieners
herein fett necessitated to present this writ petitien
seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.
3. After careful perusal of the principa’l.:::grodnd
urged by petitioners in the instant -1
hearing teamed Additionaie Governrrzent
appearing for respondents-2 to it that,
these petitioners are Hairtfkers converted
retailers and after V obtalinihng they are
distributing the the :ig;:ardh;51c:ers in their
jurisdiction as competent authority. it is
the ease of«.._theT’ that, the jurisdictional
without following the procedures as
the Control order 1992 as referred
‘the light of the direetions- cum —
‘”75:;-j~ommunit:ation issued by the found”: respondent and En
of the application filed by first respondent,
Thee—i§wi’ri1drawn eome of the cards entrusted to these
Aifpetitionere and transferred the same to die first
respondent without following the due procedure-m_..__as
envisaged under the Control order, 1992. Furtherfit.
< I
"s V
it '.
significant to note that, petitioners cannot
matter of right to continue their authotizetioriti to
the kerosene eil to the card hoiders icontféhdp’ befoije
this Court that procedures been fastener iiiiiihe
said contention of the aceepted. it
depends upon the things epportunity to
the persons of the first
respondent fourth respondent
and e diresfioni to the fifth respondent to
consider the cese_sf”first:_respondent and accordingiy, fifth
has “e.ons_idered and taken appropriate
‘decisions Vthefinterest of public in general and in
particulef, interest of cardholders of the said
. ioeelity. iiihierefore, no injustice as such has been caused
ptttifioners. Nor i find any error committed by the
h ‘resp_ondents~4 and 5 in taking such a decision. Further it
“is~iipertinent to note met, this matter is pending since 2006
«£3-
and petitioners have not obtained any interim order,”.:.ir1._V
View of the order passed by the jurisdiotionai
authority, as referred above and the pefition.erev*–e:r_e ‘also.’
distributing the kerosene oii to the oerici’-f
who comes within their V _VVA’i’hAereiore’;;
interference by this Court isynot writ
petition filed by petitioner’ as
devoid of merits. i it it
4. For yet petition filed by
pefitionersje”ii”greié’Vi5%E§’ is on the
ground have got speedy,
inexpensive,_ effeotiye’ and etficacioos alternative remedy
{Sf their grievance before the
oonioetent provided under the Controi order
992, and exhausting the said alternative remedy
.iA.ite§ariiiebie4_.Atovv’them, they are invoking the extra ordinary
of this Court under Articie 36 of the
of India by way of filing fizis writ petition.
Theréore, on this ground also, the writ petition filed by
pefitiomrs is Eiabie to be dsmissed.
5. For the foregoéng reasons, the writ H
by petitioners. is dismissed
ml-[lit