Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15184 (KAR)

GURUPRASAD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/3928/2025 · 2025-04-01

M Nagaprasanna

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13637 WP No. 3928 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 3928 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: GURUPRASAD AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O SHIVAPADAPPA R/AT THAMMADAHALLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571 128 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES GROUND FLOOR VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALURU - 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPLIES CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJNAGAR - 571313 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHI V., HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS.QUASH THE ORDER DTD.18/12/2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE K TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13637 WP No. 3928 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Anil Kumar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Spoorthi V., the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: "b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ, order or direction as the case may be to quash th order/endorsement datd 18/12/2024 bearing No.Saavipp/CR/100/2024-25 passed by respondent No.2 herein which is produced at Annexure K to the Writ Petition in the interest of justice and equity. c) Direct Respondent No.1 to issue Authorisation Letter to Petitioner herein in the interest of justice and Equity. d) Grant such other reief/reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grants in the circumstances of case including awarding of the cost of this Writ Petition." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.263/2023, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13637 WP No. 3928 of 2025 disposed of on 17.01.2023, wherein this Court has held as follows: “3. Learned counsel Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the endorsement came to be issued on the ground that the age of the deceased Ramakrishna, was above 65 years at the time when he died and therefore, the authorization cannot be transferred. This is held to be contrary to law by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17048/2021 disposed on 20.09.2021, wherein it has held as follows: "The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.17131/2018 disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 8.2.2019, copy whereof is at Annexure-F; at para Nos.9 & 10 of the order, said judgment reads as under: “From close scrutiny of the aforesaid paragraph, it is evident that in W.P.No.22448/2015 which was decided by an order dated 21.09.2016, it has been held that the requirement with regard to having passed SSLC and restriction of age is not applicable when the transfer of authorization is sought on compassionate ground. The aforesaid finding has admittedly attained finality and is binding on the respondents as they have not challenged the same either by filing a review petition or by filing a writ appeal. Therefore this Court finds no reason to take a different view. 10. In the result, the impugned endorsement dated 23.03.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to take note of the application filed by the petitioner and to consider the same for transfer of the authorization on compassionate ground as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.” - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13637 WP No. 3928 of 2025 2. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed; impugned endorsement dated 03.09.2021 at Annexure-B is quashed; second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s application without reference to age and qualification. Time for compliance is two months. No costs." (emphasis supplied) 4. In the light of the fact that the issue in the lis stands covered to the orders passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court (supra), which is not disputed by the learned AGA, I deem it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER I. The writ petition is allowed. II. The endorsement dated 20.09.2022 stands quashed. III. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations in the course of the order within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already issued. IV. The representation of the petitioner would be considered in the course of the order within 12 weeks and appropriate orders shall be passed only if the same is not allotted to any other person as on date.” - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13637 WP No. 3928 of 2025 4. In the light of the order passed by this Court and for the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed; (ii) The order/endorsement dated 18.12.2024 bearing No. ಾಪ/ಆ/100/2024-25 passed by respondent No.2, stands quashed; (iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations in the course of the order within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already issued. (iv) The representation of the petitioner would be considered in the course of the order within 12 weeks and appropriate orders shall be passed, only if the same is not allotted to any other person as on date. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43