- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25008 WP No. 14479 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 14479 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: 1. MANZAR SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE MAQBUL SHARIFF, RESIDENT OF N. BELTHUR VILLAGE AND POST, ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 125. … 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, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570 005. Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25008 WP No. 14479 of 2025 3. THE THASILDAR H.D. KOTE TALUK, H.D. KOTE, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-571 125. 4. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES 5TH FLOOR, MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 28.04.2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN HIS ORDER NO. D.HO.ANUKAMPA/02/2024-25 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for setting aside the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the second respondent at Annexure-B. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner's father was the holder of authorisation and upon the death of petitioner's father, petitioner had sought for transfer of authorisation on compassionate grounds. It is the case of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25008 WP No. 14479 of 2025 petitioner that rejection of request for transfer was only on the ground that petitioner's father was aged 80 years, while the applicable Food Control Order of 2016 at Clause 13 provides for transfer only if the authorized holder was less than 65 years. 3. Perused the order passed in W.P.No.481/2025 dated 30.06.2025. Para 4 and 5 of the said order reads as follows: "4. Perused the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.27403/2017. 5. In terms of the order dated 16.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27403/2017, the Co-ordinate Bench has observed at para-2 as follows:- "2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner has declined to allow the application filed at the hands of the petitioner seeking transfer of authorization hitherto held by her husband Sri P.Srinivas till his death, on the ground that the application has been filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days and moreover, the petitioner has not passed S.S.L.C. examination and therefore, the authorization cannot be transferred. Learned Counsel submits that this Court has considered similar circumstances in various cases including Sri Mallikarjun Ashok Matti Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.105404/2018 dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25008 WP No. 14479 of 2025 04.12.2018, decided at Dharwad Bench. Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph-6 of the order wherein the relevant Clause-13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 was considered by this Court having regard to the earlier 4 decisions rendered by the co-ordinate Benches in W.P.No.8586/2006 dated 21.11.2008; W.P.No.55097/2017 dated 11.12.2017; W.P.No.204335/2014 dated 17.11.2017 etc and held that prescription of age and minimum educational qualification cannot be made applicable to cases where the authorization is sought to be transferred on compassionate grounds and therefore, directed the authorities to consider their applications without insisting for minimum educational qualification and the age limit prescribed in the proviso and it was also held that the technical ground for making the application within a period of 90 days also should not be made applicable in such cases or should be considered with leniency. When such benefit has been given to many other persons at the hands of this Court, the same cannot be denied to the petitioner." 4. It is clear from the above, in light of the assertion of the petitioner that petitioner's father was the holder of authorisation under the Food Control Order of 1992, insistence of requirement under the amended Clause 13 of Food Control Order of 2016 does not arise. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25008 WP No. 14479 of 2025 5. Accordingly, in light of the discussion made supra, the endorsement at Annexure-B is set aside. Respondent no.2 to pass orders and grant authorisation if other guidelines are met, within a period of six weeks from today. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP