- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21976 WP No. 17496 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 17496 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: 1. B S SRIKANTA GUPTHA S/O SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO. 1333 SRI SRIKANTESHWARA KRIPA R.C ROAD NEAR P.W.D QUARTERS AUTO STAND HASSAN 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGAMESHA B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT HASSAN 573 201. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINISTRY OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBDEKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K P YASHODHA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1956, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE R1 IN NO. fDºÁ/ºÁ.£À/¹.Dgï-19/2024-25/156 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21976 WP No. 17496 of 2025 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 Petitioner has called in question the validity of the order at Annexure-A, which is in the nature of an endorsement whereby the request of the petitioner to transfer authorisation into his name consequence to the death of his father has been rejected placing reliance on Clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Amended Order, 2021. 2. It is to be noticed that in terms of the endorsement, the respondent - Authority has observed that the petitioner has attained the age of 65 years and in light of the restrictions under Clause 13, which provides that the transfer of authorisation cannot be made in the event the person in whose favour the authorisation is sought to be transferred, is above 65 years. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21976 WP No. 17496 of 2025 3. It is to be noticed that the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.765/2024 at Para No.8 has observed as follows: "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. 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." 4. It is also noticed that the authorisation in the present case was issued under the Control Order of 1992. If that were to be so, in terms of the observations made at Para No.8 in W.P.No.765/2024 extracted above, such restriction is to be treated to be prospective and cannot be applied to authorizations issued under the Control Order of 1992. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21976 WP No. 17496 of 2025 5. Accordingly, the endorsement is set aside. Respondent No.1 is to pass appropriate orders for transfer of authorisation if other legal requirements are fulfilled within a period of 3 weeks from today. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP