- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17939 WP No. 8351 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8351 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: C.P. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKAPAPAIAH, ADOPTED SON OF SMT. PILLAMMA, W/O LATE N. PAPAIAH, RESIDENT OF GUNDLUGURKI VILLAGE, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPUR. 3. THE THASILDAR, CHICKBALLAPUT TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17939 WP No. 8351 of 2025 3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, 5TH FLOOR, MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25/02/2025 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN HIS ORDER NO. AT ANNX-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: "i) issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the second respondent in his Order No.Aa Na Sa/DRA/ .ಪ/ಾ.ೆ.ಅಂಾ/06/201-1 at Annexure - B; ii) Issue writ of mandamus to the respondent No.2 to transfer authorization in favour of the petitioner forthwith pursuant to the application dated 31.01.2024 at Annexure - A1 without seeking any permission from the respondent No.4 to avoid delay in issuing the authorization in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17939 WP No. 8351 of 2025 terms of the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.31745/2024 at Annexure-D; iii) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents deem fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Shri Shivaramu H.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of G. PRITVIRAJ Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Ors.1, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows: "Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner’s father was granted authorization to run a fair price shop for the distribution of food grains under the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 1992. Upon the death of his father, the petitioner filed an application/representation dated 14.09.2024, seeking transfer of authorization granted to his father on compassionate grounds. However, the said application/representation was rejected on the ground 1 WP.No.31745/2024 disposed on 06.12.2024 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17939 WP No. 8351 of 2025 that the petitioner has not passed SSLC and the age of the deceased license holders at the time of death exceeded 65 years. 3. This Court, in similar circumstances in W.P. No.765/2024 and connected matters, has passed the following order: "In all these petitions, the petitioners, who are the sons, spouse, and both married and unmarried daughters of the deceased dealers, seek the transfer of authorization to operate fair price shops under the Public Distribution System (Control Order, 1992) on compassionate grounds. The deceased dealers had been granted authorization during their lifetime, and upon their passing, the petitioners submitted applications requesting the transfer of the said authorization. 2. The petitioners' applications were rejected on the grounds that married daughters are not entitled to the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds, they did not meet the requisite qualifications, and the age of the deceased license holders at the time of death exceeded 65 years. 3. The learned counsels for the petitioners contended that the original authorization was granted under the Control Orders of 1986 and 1992, and as per the provisions of unamended Clause 13, there was no restriction on the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. The petitioners argued that the amended Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021 are not applicable to authorizations granted under the unamended orders. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that married daughters are equally entitled to the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds, citing the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 51361/2019. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents, along with the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) representing the State, argued that the amended - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17939 WP No. 8351 of 2025 Clause 13 of the Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021 explicitly prohibits the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds if the authorized dealer dies after reaching the age of 65 years or if the transferee does not possess the prescribed qualifications. They relied on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 13559/2020 and connected petitions, which were disposed of on 23.12.2021, to support their position. 5. After carefully considering the arguments put forth by the learned counsels for the parties, the key point for deliberation is whether the petitioners are entitled to the transfer of authorization to run fair price shops on compassionate grounds. 6. Clause 13 of the unamended Public Distribution System (Control Order, 1992) dealt with the prohibition of the transfer of authorization. It states that no authorized dealer shall assign or transfer their authorization to any other person, nor shall any person carry on business on behalf of such an authorized dealer. However, a proviso to Clause 13 allows for the transfer of authorization in the event of the death of an authorized dealer, with prior approval of the Government, to the spouse, son, or unmarried daughter of the deceased. 7. Subsequent amendments to Clause 13, made in 2016, 2017, and 2021, introduced restrictions on the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. The amended provisions prohibit such transfers if the authorized dealer was over the age of 65 at the time of death or if the transferee had not completed the 10th standard and did not apply for the transfer within 90 days of the death. 8. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 13559/2022, upheld the validity of the amended proviso to Clause 13, but it was dealing with a challenge related to the renewal of authorization on compassionate grounds. In W.P. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17939 WP No. 8351 of 2025 No. 55097/2017, disposed of on 11.12.2017, this Court held that the condition regarding the age limit imposed in the amended Clause 13 was not sustainable. The decision in W.P. No. 204335/2014, which was followed in W.P. No. 43249/2017, ruled similarly. Furthermore, in W.P. No. 103408/2023, disposed of on 12.06.2023, this Court reiterated that the restrictions introduced in the Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021 were prospective in nature and could not be applied retrospectively to authorizations granted under the unamended Control Order of 1992. Therefore, these restrictions are only applicable to applicants seeking fresh authorizations and not to existing authorized dealers or their legal heirs. 9. In W.P. No. 51361/2019, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court addressed the issue of whether married daughters are entitled to the transfer of authorization. In paragraph 3, it was held that the Control Orders of 2016 and 2021, which provide for the transfer of authorization to unmarried daughters or widowed daughters with no source of income, cannot discriminate against married daughters solely on the basis of their marital status, provided they have no independent source of income. Such discrimination violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex. This view is supported by the decision in *Bhuvaneshwari*, where the Court held that the principle of equality extends to matters of compassionate appointments as well. The Supreme Court also affirmed this view in S.L.P. (C) No. 20166/2021, disposed of on 17.12.2021. 10. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench clearly establishes that there can be no discrimination between married and unmarried daughters when it comes to the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. Discriminating against daughters based solely on their marital status violates the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17939 WP No. 8351 of 2025 11. In light of the foregoing, it is evident that the spouse, sons, adopted sons, and both married and unmarried daughters of deceased authorized dealers, who have attained the age of 18 years, are entitled to the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. Denial of such transfers on the grounds of marriage or other arbitrary criteria is discriminatory and unsustainable in law. 4. In light of the above, the present deserves to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid petitions. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 01.10.2024 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B is hereby quashed. (iii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to issue authorization to the petitioner in light of the observations made in W.P. No.22431/2024 and connected matters vide Annexure-C. (iv) The 2nd respondent to issue authorization in favour of the petitioner without seeking any permission from the 3rd respondent. (v) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench and the facts being undisputed, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17939 WP No. 8351 of 2025 (ii) The impugned order dated 25.02.2025 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B is hereby quashed. (iii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to issue authorization to the petitioner in light of the observations made in W.P.No.31745/2024 vide Annexure-D. (iv) Respondent No.2 to issue authorization in favour of the petitioner without seeking any permission from respondent No.3. (v) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 CT: BHK