- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19933 WP No. 16368 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 16368 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: 1. C P LAKSHMISH RAO AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O.LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, R/O.CHANDANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALAGERE POST, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 215. … 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, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN. Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19933 WP No. 16368 of 2025 3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, 5TH FLOOR, MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. … RESPONDENTS (BY MS. YASHODHA K.P., AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2025 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN HIS ORDER NO. CR/05/2024-25 AT ANNEXURE - B AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 29.03.2025 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-'B'. The petitioner has also sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to respondent No.2 to transfer the authorisation in favour of petitioner forthwith and has also sought for issuance of login after transfer of authorisation. 2. The admitted facts are that the father of the petitioner had authorisation to run a Fair Price Depot. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19933 WP No. 16368 of 2025 Upon death of the father of petitioner, the petitioner sought transfer of authorisation into his name, however, the same has been rejected on the ground that the application was filed beyond the period of 90 days. The endorsement at Annexure-'B' contains the reasons for rejection of authorisation. 3. In terms of the order dated 16.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27403/2017, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-'C', 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19933 WP No. 16368 of 2025 Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.105404/2018 dated 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19933 WP No. 16368 of 2025 4. In light of the said legal position as emanating from the observation extracted hereinabove, the objection regarding application filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days cannot be made applicable to the cases where transfer of authorisation is sought on compassionate grounds. 5. In light of the same, the endorsement at Annexure-'B' dated 29.03.2025 is set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner without reference of the aspect of delay. If the said application for transfer of authorisation is in order, necessary orders is to be passed within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 6. Needless to state that, if no order is passed within the time stipulated, the respondent is to seek for extension of time before this Court. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR