IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE'fIi'IjID, *
DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF NO>.rE:v:EER»'
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHATN'~SHANTANIAGO1UPADART.T
WRIT PETITION NO.3{I6I5A G-FV:..2;_Q_1'";;(;3~_.(GM'-¥7'IL\S)'
BETWEEN:
SRIISTHONTARADYA,' _ _ -
S/O SIDDALINGARADYAf;,-' _
AGED ABOUT 43 " .j" .
FAIR PRICE DEPOTDE_AIIER"*- » '
RESIDENT OF,.a\I.A,DUvA'N'AHALI.Y' ._ " "
HANDANAKERE HOEI.;I_ ' _
CHIKKANAYAKAIIAHALLY-TALUI<._"~«--._ -
TUMKUR DISTRICT ' "
PETITIONER
('BY S RI : K. 'VLII~NGARA3-.,.,_V_AE§V) V"
VAND}«."
1. .T'HTE.PRIN'C,IPAL»SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
POOD AND-<':I.vII. SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT
vIIT..O,ROER
DATED 25.05.2010 PASSED BY THE REWSIONAL; .AUvTH_ORITv VIDE
ANNEX---H AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF" CANCELLLATION
DATED 27.05.2009 PASSED» Ev THE' DEPUTY COM'MIS"SIONER,
TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR~.._\'zIDE~_ AI§dNE}{._-_'F.., A~N_D ALSO ORDER
PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AU'TH'ORI.T¥* I.E._,~COM'M,ISSIONER FOR
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, B_ANGALO_RE, DATE'D..';2A';10.2009 VIDE
ANNEX---G AND ETC., - *
THIS WP ,.CO'I-1_IN1?3.';'._ON:.jEO'R._ PRE:;;IMIi»IAVRY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MA.D_E.V_THE EO'L;.jOwING:
E
The o:rd'e«rsV 'F', 'G' and 'H' dated
27.05.2009. 2i4';1_G.2QD9A"v_aVh'diV 25.05.2010 passed by the
..'DépIJty'-ICOrIImiSSioner,'"TuI9n3<ur, Commissioner for Food and
Cii'/'ii_i_. éfifirnataka, Bangaiore (Appeliate Authority)
Go_§AernVméiII.i:'TV:0f Karnataka (Revisionai Authority) are
_._T.T'.jj-Caiied in qI"I'g__.€:§1='L'i0a1 in this writ petition.
\'/\
2. The records reveai that the third respondent
issued authorisation to the petitioner to run Fair Price Depot
at Naduvanahally Village, Chikkanayakanahally
District which was valid upto 21.07.2010. Basedon eeiteir. M
ailegations, third respondent suspended ‘a’u”th«o_ri’lsation:”g_ra:rite’d
in favour of the petitioner on Uli’ti_-rriate’¥ylV
27.05.2009, the third respondent ‘cancelled ‘theviauzthorisatlilon
granted in favour of the peti”ti.g_jnerriifo’r’ihrunning Fair Price Depot
as per order Annexure–‘F’. passed by
the Deputy appeai before
the Appeliate to be dismissed as
per the order 0 0T’:he’re-after, the petitioner
approachedtvvthe The revision also stood
dismissed as pier”-orxclergAnrt.e>€tl”re–‘H’.
the..Vthree authorities on facts have concluded
that”th’e.__petiti_o.ne.r’-has induiged in various irregularities in
running”.”the¥:Fa’ir”‘ Price Depot. The irregularities have been
.1″en’urnie:’atedV”in the order of Deputy Commissioner as weil as in
order’:of Revisionai Authority.
T/”‘”)
4. The petitioner did not distribute food grains to the
five Annapoorna Ration Card holders in the month of Fevbr;u.aiy_
2007; that the petitioner had entrusted an
person as representative for runningmyFair.”‘Pr’ice_ivpdepot;
petitioner used to distribute food grains to»t:he’ii»card:””hoideyrsixfé
only for 4 to 5 days in a month, tih:er.e.after;..he use’d”‘i:o=selVi
commodities in the biack market; p_eutiti_oner did distribute
the essential commodities’asV:”per–V.Ltrieiyffhcjuantpityprescribed by
the State Government; thatthie distributing
only 2 litres of required to be
distributed fused to misuse the
baiance -issue receipts for having
distributed to distribute only 8 kgs of
rice andy_}i/fzfvkvg of srugair and used to seil the remaining in the
Ibiack1marl<eti._th'e..petitioner used to prevent the inspection;
his ffbehfaviiovr:'wii.th'V~:jt'h.e card hoiders was improper. Certain
other ali."egat-iAoris"'are also found against him.
2 view of the aforementioned irregularities which
are fcguhdi to be correct by at! the three authorities on facts,
thiVswCourt does not find any grouxgd to interfere with the
i'
impugned order. yience, the petition fans and the sarne
sta nd s dismissed.