us run' V . 'A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOR-E_
DATED THES THE 7*" DAY OF DECEMBER, aaigiif
BEFORE
THE HONBLE N\R.JUS'i'ICE MOHAM si5+AOErm\1§AeO'ur;VALEv»~.E 7
Wm P_EIITION NO'.V3O6173/:2O'i:C J %
BETWEEN:
C.Chikka Kempegowda Vi
Aged 38 years * _ J
S/o.|ate chlkkannay --
R/o.Bui|aha|ii ' ..
Kanakapura.Ta|<uleif_;.~_ ~ ' _ '
Ramanagaf Dis-tgg, O *._.;=PETITIONER
(By Sr?e_#§'.TBVi'iVi'Ei5i;,kE1 if\dvx.",VV)W
AND: _ . _ E.
1. TheCon{rnl_§»Siotiei"~_ V 'V
FQodi"84. Civil 'Supplies
"N0.8;~.Cu2jn1ngham'Road
."Thé'Déput;if'Commissi0ner
._.RamVana'g.air Dist.
Ram-anagar
.viETheOTahsi|dar
v __i§amanagar Taiuk
Ramanagar
4. Smt.c.B.Basamma ©
Vasavarajamma
Major
W/o.iVl.C.Chandrasekhar
R/o.Mu||aha||i
Kanakapura Taluk y
Ramanagar Dist. _.;.»..R.ESPOND'Et-{TS '
(By Sri H.C.Shivaramu, Adv.,_for C/R4 ,
Sri Sangamesh Patil, AGA fQy'r~..F_{1 tO"R_Z_':)» _
This writ_n.etit;i_on is 226 and 227
of the Co_n4st-i.t'utijpn_ ~.r)if« I.I_1:di23_.,V to quash the
impugr;'e'ti"Vi'Or2:1.:fer passed by R1 vide
Annexure--H"'to and consequently confirm
the ordeir"'-iciated"" passed by R2 in dispute
No.Ffi/CHI.C4..VF,'.Z4/9738Tvide Anne)-:ure~G to the writ
' '"V--pet'it.i6n2,_under the 'facts and circumstances of the case, etc.
""'iéThis'.'{ritj_rit1"petition coming on for preliminary hearing,
--V this'.'"day'----'tVhe"Court made the fo||owing:~
ORDER
Notification was issued by the 2″” respo’ndeVntcI”oriA.V.
29.9.2997 inviting applications
candidates for grant of licence
kerosene in retail at Muitlafiafii “V_i_i|’age,
Taiuk. Pursuant to the said petitioner
as well as respondent others, filed
applications ‘/Erhe petitioner
was ifperfiiiétnnexure-B, dated
15.4.t.9*9’8_VAV.A:’ii’he:’1iaa.idfotdAe’r’iiua.-siiiquestioned by the 4″‘
responderit Commissioner, the
appellateCa”utVhorit.yAa_nd.–§”nthereafter before this Court in
1825/2HC!Ci’1″.” This Court set aside the order of
i–..<_ijr.ant favour of the petitioner by its order
dated and remitted the matter to the
Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance
'"W'i'ti'i'– law.
M
2. After remand, the Deputy Commissioner again
passed the order in favour of the petltl|On’:C’T””<'hVt'3..]f:éi'1}:"
granting authorisation in his favour.
was confirmed by the appellate a=uth,orit7yin_.:the- 4a'ppeAai':1vs_rA
filed by respondent No.4 h'erie_in. V"'Th'ereafteri._ivthe ..'4"l
respondent approached 'iCour.t filing
WP.No.5982/2007 for The said writ
petition was disposed of' setting aside
the order as well
as the e:,siptDte:siajte was remitted to the
Deputy disposal in accordance
with law. fiiéiftier_r=enii.an"d for the second time, the
i…'Commissio'n'er\ passed the order granting
fas–uth_o'riisat«i.oriifV'ii~n:.1~~favour of the petitioner as per the
_orde'rv_at isiinaxaee, dated 15.12.2009. The order of
,Deputy Commissioner was questioned by the 4"'
41.’_’i’~re”:ip’on’dent herein before the appellate authority. The
M
said appeal was allowed on 23.10.2010 at Annexure~H
and the order of the Deputy Commissioner
aside. The 15′ respondent–Commissioner
that the licence be issued in»~~fayo1;_4rhlllvofifthe014″”-.,t
respondent. Questioning the
is filed.
3. As could be seen’V«._l”r.om the’ order at
Annexure-B, by which?” was granted
authorisation on Vit.._’is_£<:lear that he
was gra'n'ted:autht:-r'isatio-n the ground that he
is unenn'ploye'd,. up to PUC. It is also
mentrionedélin _thet'.vei*yV'o'rder that the 4th respondent's
'JV'"'appl–icati'on'" is rejected on the ground that she has
Standard. Thus, it is clear that only
which the petitioner was granted
]auth_oris~a.tion was that he was unemployed educated
The same was found to be wrong by this
[\/\
Court in WP.|\£o.11825/2001. On evaluating" the
material on record, this Court conciuded t..h'a.,t-«…V_thve
petitioner herein was doing contract work tiit 0*
inasmuch as he was having;'Co.ntra_'ctoVr"sl',!iEen'ce'…
Subsequent to 1.4.2000 |icVence"«w:a.sA'not":Aerne»ve5'~ai3TI5'~,
to 2005. This fact was aEVso–.joo,nsidared«bf? "Court 0'
in the said writ petiti'o~n_. 'Fh'e"rej,ie§}a._nt date that is to
be taken into consideration is:thar2:«..the,_*date of grant of
authorisation,' ;'3i'nc.eV7the petitioner is
not unerT€:.plC.i'3"/'eel this Court in
WP.No.,1l_8i2A5}.2V0,0:'1'«o,o"ng|uded that the petitioner
cannot i:5e,4treat'ed"as,.a"n.:unemployed youth as he was
having Contractor's viicence till 1.4.2000 and that he
was;VdoTing–,oo.n_tractor work till that date. In spite of
'the"–.ispeeificfohservations made by this Court, the
I_Deputys"a:Cornmissioner and thereafter the appeilate
A V~Iif"auth*ority, even after remand, passed the order in
0' favour of the petitioner on the ground that the 4"'
M
_7m
respondent herein has passed oniy 7"' Standard and
that therefore she cannot be granted authorisa.t'i'o,n in
view of the Government Notification dated
which prescribes 10"" Standard as…ajj._ni.i:ni'.rnurn.,soi*
qualification to hold authorisation.,..1fho'se':'.orde*rs..cg_we:re-
aiso set aside by this =Co..urt
holding that the Notificatio_rifd:ate__d cannot
be made applicabie t'oithe'«faict.s"'of':t:'he.. case, inasmuch
as the releva'i1.t yjeair'iwthaitfiis taken into
considera;t'io'ri«i._is-~*iiV;.V9.9'Zj;9§8~,,the date on which the
notifi:cati__o.n"c.gii.j_ngp for-.a_p_pi'ications is issued and the
date – petitioner was granted
authorisation;-….V:£\s the date of inviting application,
»LSSLCVvA_vqua.iVifi.cation was not prescribed. Thus, there
for the authorities to consider the
appiiciation of the 4"' respondent who has passed 7""
A A.Sjt'a~«ndard. Observing so, this Court remitted the
' Lmatter to the Deputy Commissioner for consideration
.i'"'
afresh. Even after remand on two occasions, the
Deputy Commissioner, once again fell into error, by
ignoring the observations made by this
aforementioned two writ petitions, wh.i~c–h-A4.:'Zf"3Su:lted
an erroneous order. The erro=neo_us,f1vord.et'so";ja_ss.e,d
by the Deputy Commissio'ne–r__waVs'-rightly',:set=asVid'3e
the appellate authority. T_h:éfa_pp_ellat'e'«authority has
passed the order in 'a'ccordavfi.civeiéiwiiih;law: after taking
into accounttvailthe c§'b'se'r'viat:i:o«n's,__ni'ad«e""by this Court in
the two writi,_'*–pe-titi_o:n':€.,_,,if"Si__n};efth.e petitioner was not
unemplo\yed'9'9'a,,…§i1,the"'d._ate.'of fiiing of application and
as on the:_'date"'oVf""g'ran't..t,"m'ade in his favour in the year
9-he not have been preferred to
V Vre~s,po.n"dei1t""N_o.4. As aforementioned, the Notification
llaateai issued by the State Government
preiscriibing minimum qualification as SSLC is also not
A appficable to the facts of the case. The relevant date
' M be taken into consideration is 29.9.1997, i.e., the
/*5
-9″
date of Notification inviting applications or at the most
the date of grant of authorisation that is 15.4.1
In that view of the matter, no
forthcoming to interfere wit
Hence, writ petit
dismissed.
998%
h imV;:j*u_ g n »« . or_Ci-er .
ion faiis ,an__d a«cc_or=dingiy”;…:’srame;”i’s'”–.,