- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9259 WP No. 5137 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 5137 OF 2023 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: SMT. JYOTHI W/O LATE H.G.SHIVARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT HUTHRI VILLAGE HUTHRI DURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMESH K. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY, VIKASA SOUDHA VIDHANA VEEDI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, NO.8, 5TH FLOOR CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU – 572 101. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9259 WP No. 5137 of 2023 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF FOODS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS NO.205, 2ND FLOOR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU – 572 101. 5. THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SESHU V., HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER /ENDORSEMENT DTD 26.07.2022 BEARING NO.FSD/FPD/PRA-44/1994-95 PASSED BY THE R-4 AT ANNX-J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 26.07.2022, issued by the fourth respondent, by which the application seeking transfer of authorization to run the fair price shop, as sought by the petitioner, wife of one H.G.Shivaramaiah is declined. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9259 WP No. 5137 of 2023 2. Heard Sri Ramesh K.R., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Seshu V., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: One H.G.Shivaramaiah, the late husband of the petitioner was granted license / authorization to run a fair price shop on 16.03.1992. During his lifetime, i.e., in the year 2014, the authorization granted to the petitioner stood cancelled and the cancellation of the authorization granted to late husband was not challenged by him during his lifetime. He dies in the year 2019. After the death of the husband, the petitioner - wife submits a representation seeking transfer of the authorization in her favour to run the fair price shop on compassionate grounds. The respondents decline to transfer the authorization to the petitioner on the ground that there was no authorization subsisting as on the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner, by issuance of an endorsement dated 26.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9259 WP No. 5137 of 2023 4. In the normal circumstance, following the law laid down by this Court in plethora of cases, this Court would have directed the respondents to transfer the authorization to the legal heirs of the deceased on compassionate grounds. The case at hand has generated a twist, the twist is that, the late husband of the petitioner who was authorised to run the fair price shop, was cancelled in the year 2014 and the cancellation was never challenged by him during his lifetime. Therefore, on the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner, there was no authorization subsisting as the cancellation of the authorization is not challenged by the husband of the petitioner, during his lifetime. The cancellation having not challenged throughout the lifetime of the husband, the wife now cannot contend that the authorization to run the fair price shop be transferred in her favour on compassionate grounds. 5. If the license or authorization was in subsistence it would be a different circumstance or if the husband would have challenged the cancellation of the authorization and the challenge was pending consideration before any fora on the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9259 WP No. 5137 of 2023 date of his death, it would be a different circumstance altogether. Those are not the circumstances in the case at hand. Therefore, the petition would not merit any consideration for transfer of the authorization, which was not in subsistence as on the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner. 6. With the above observations, the petition stands rejected. SD/- ____________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74 CT:SS