EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010".
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J '
WRIT PETITION NO.28001
BET'jfl_EEN:
SMT. MANJULA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O SRI SHIVAKUMAR SW/«\lV§Y,
R/AT ANKALLI VILLAGE,
BOMMALAPURA POST,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT. V :..'P"IE~TiT'I:()j_.\z{EjR
(BY SRI: JAVAKUMRR' RAT1EASSoEIATE'S,'IA3vQiiATES)
E. THE STATE Q_R..;§ARN%A':'R::k:;R,V._ ._
FOOD AT\zDVC1v1L"SuT>.PL1ESj AI\!_D'z_ .
C0NSL:MER;A':=E_A1R DERA..RT'MENT_, * -
M.S.Eu1LD1N._r3,'4 ' _.
BANGALORE, ' _
av ITS SECRETARY. .
2. THE CoTv1§vTT'SSIoNER"'oEVE ODAND
:.»"CI._\,/IL SQRRLEIEVS, ----------
';cuNm1Nc3HAM 'ROAQ,
B{XN-C;TALQRE--v.._V '
THE DEVRUETV"'Cc5MM1'S'SioNER
CHAMARA}NAC_3AR',----_ '
<:HAMARAJNA.__E;AR DISTRICT.
" TARSILDAR,
'AGpNDLuR_ET TALUK,
.CHA_fv1A_RAj_NAGAR DISTRICT.
5. SR1 M PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
SIG MADARRA,
R/AT ANKALLI VILLAGE,
BOMMALAPURA POST,
GUNDLURET TALUK, T »
CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT. ...RESRONDENT'S _
(av SRI: H c SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR REsRONDE:\:T'v'~--:Tv ,
No.5, SRI: S B SHAHAPUR, ADDI?ION!'1L"GO'VER!\§MEN?" ._
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 1 To 4'; " ._
THIS WRIT RETITION IS FILED UNDERVARTICIE 226 AN{3. 2~2.”Z. OF THE.’
CONSTITUTION OF’ INDIA PRAYING TO Q-UA’:-H ORDER ‘D.ATED’g 24.07.2010
PRODUCED AT /-\NNE)<URE–i< ISSUED BY RESRONDENT No.1 Al\iD} TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 1.6.1.2010 ,P.RODUCiED..V/SIT"ANNEXURE-JV-'ISSUED av
RESPONDENT NO.2. I ' –. .
THIS WRIT RE”rITION,_cOIvTIN_G.O.N’=AORRRE’1.I’MIN’AiR’r’ HEARING BEFORE
THE COURT THIS DAY, B-V1E.§jO.iJ_RTMADE_”‘fHE_F’O.LL.QWING:~
Mr.S.B.S.h-a~haD’uiri.’ =.AdAciit’i’o.na§| Government _ Advocate,
accepts notJce\for’– Notice to respondent No.5 is
waived, as Mr.H.C1SuhixiaramU’.has.–_eTItered caveat.
.E\rieI:IthAO.ug’hA. the HrrIat’teI’ is listed for preiirninary hearing, with
Consent, {it is taken -F”or.Vfi’jIa¥ disposai.
_ 3. Both tiiepetitioner as wet! as respondent No.5 were the
‘4ap:ol’1caV.Dt.sV.for authorisation in respect of Fair Price Shop in Ankafii
*-_VGVU*.”.–d’iUpE3t Tafuk. The said notification discioses that the
#2
//.7
applicant’s minimum required qualification for authorisation is SSLC
pass and the applicant nor any members of the famiiy shoulrijnot be
an employee of the Government or the eiected
Another condition was that the applicant shouid not
any political party, etc. Suffice to say t’nat”the
petitioner was considered by the
authorisation was granted in his was
questioned by fifth respondent by ways—of:.a:n lavpypealdi Thesiaid appeai
was accepted by the appeliate iav:uthVorisati_on granted
in favour of the petitioneri vvas that Clauses S
and 6 of the (Pubiic Distribution
System) Aggrieved by the
said order, the the revisionai authority. The
revisional authorityihasconfirriielcitihéellorder of the appeliate authority,
but with a riidertythaltiltheV_VHautho’;*isation should be granted in favour of
petlitioner is realiy aggrieved by the order
passed. Vthe}._reyyisio~nai authority to the extent of granting
7.g}3″u’tvhor’isatio..n inviavofurl of fifth respondent.
weil as the respondents. Indeed, the reason for appeilate authority
“I iihavevlheard the learned counsei appearing for the petitioner
are
_,,/””.'”T’
to set aside the authorisation granted in favour of the petitioner was
solely on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner not
considered the application with reference to the Clauses
Essentiai Commodities (Public Distribution System}
1992. Indeed, a perusai of the order:-p’a’ssed&’
authority would cleariy indicate that the
interference. But, further surprisingly–a:’L”direction__ is .iuss~igAe’d_::t’owDeputy” V
Commissioner to grant authorisation .fifi:KrI’vr..eS.§3EOHd€l3t to
run the Fair Price Shop at Taluk,
Charnarajanagar Disti’iCt_.:” authority has
confirmed the ordett aHutho:’ity remitting the
matter for for the revisionai
authority to issue __ _ ‘
5. iincidentaflyy, it is that fifth respondent did not
have. the belnvefit of order before the appeilate authority.
iEnd’e.ed:_; theljordier pafssed by the appeiiate authority was stayed by the
i’evisiofna_l tiaviiwg regard to the facts, I am of the view that
Vfythe _directi”on »i’sst:ie’d by the ievisional authority to the Deputy
“44’Corrim».i’ssiorne:* “to” issue authorisation in favour of fifth respondent is
it»?
liable to be interfered, but however, rest of the order passed by the
revisioriai authority is required to be confirmed.
6. Hence, the foiiowing order.
i) The order passed by the appeiiate authori_ty”as’iv1eEii.’
as the revisionai authority rem’itt’irig.thé i’i_1att’ei_’ to-[3
the {Deputy Commissioner for fir.esh’_”diispoisai”~st’arids’*~-._fli’
confirmed.
ii) The direction issued by thvei*ir_e’visionai’-.aA_utiiority to
the Deputy Coi”nm.i’ssionei**’to’grant’-aLiti*ior9i’s’ation in
favour of fifth resporide-nt’–is aisiideid
iii) Statuswquo in ._i_’espeEtV’o§1c£is’trri:butionriot?” food grams
as on twiig gfate oi’. passing’ riof”‘the””order by the
revisiotiai _au_tho’rit\/ .’ s A
iv) TheW”Dreif§i.ity’;?i’Con*i:fi’issioner’it to conciude the
corisitieratioifosfibt.h:é*i»_aV§3p’iiCations for authorisation
withinLouter’Einfi’it’o.f:”t~hi;eVe months from the date of
_:<e{:eipt'uo.'._a Copy of order.
“‘ii’£r.V’:”V§’;”.’Ei..Siiahapur, iearhed Additionai Government Advocate, is
permit~ted._rtoV iii.ie’irriei9riroVjof appearance within four weeks.
Sd/-gm
Iuidge