- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17350 WP No. 10853 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 10853 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: SRI YATHISHA A.S., S/O LATE SRINIVASA K., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.5, BANASHANKARI ROAD, AJJAMPURA, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 547. …PETITIONER (BY SRI J. R. MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 129. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17350 WP No. 10853 of 2025 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TARIKERE TALUK, TARIKERE - 577 228, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.AANASA- NYABEAN-CR-61- 2024-25 DATED 03-03-2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 03-03-2025, by which the application of the petitioner seeking transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds comes to be rejected. 2. Heard Sri. J. R. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17350 WP No. 10853 of 2025 Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the endorsement comes about on the ground that the age of the father 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 coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.17048/2021 disposed on 20-09-2021, wherein it is 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17350 WP No. 10853 of 2025 ground as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.” 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 by the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court supra, which is not disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate, I deem it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The endorsement dated 03-03-2025 stands quashed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17350 WP No. 10853 of 2025 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 allotted to anyone else. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26