- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1772 WP No. 100594 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100594 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: SRI. PRASHANTHGOUDA S/O. SIDDANAGOUD MALIPATIL, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. ALAVANDI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. KOPPAL -583231. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPT. OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560001, BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY. 2. THE FOOD COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU -560052. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL -583236. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, KOPPAL -583236. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KOPPAL -583236. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, FOR THE Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1772 WP No. 100594 of 2025 REASONS STATED ABOVE IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT AFTER CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE THIS HON BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND TO ISSUE. WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.01.2025 PASSED BY 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO.SANKY.AANASA/CR-2/13/KOPPAL/CG/2024-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER FAIR PRICE SHOP AUTHORIZATION NO.31/1993-94 DATED 05-08-1993 SITUATED AT ALAVANDI VILLAGE OF KOPPAL TQ AND DIST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following payer: “To issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing the impugned endorsement dated 20.01.2025 passed by 4th respondent bearing No.sanky.aanasa/cr-2/13/koppal/cg/2024-25 vide Annexure-E issued by 4th respondent in respect of petitioner fair price shop authorization No.31/1993-94 dated 05-08-1993 situated at Alavandi village of Koppal tq and dist, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.B.C. Jnanayya Swami appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA Sri.Sharad V.Magadum for the respondent-State. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1772 WP No. 100594 of 2025 3. The father of the petitioner during his lifetime, had authorization to run the fair price shop, which he ran up to date of death on 07.09.2024. The petitioner then submits application seeking transfer of licence. That having been rejected has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. This Court in identical circumstances, where transfer of license was rejected on the same ground, has following the earlier orders, passed in W.P.No.23227/2022 disposed on 28.11.2022 by the Coordinate Bench held as follows: “3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8586/2006 disposed on 21.11.2008, W.P.No. 22448/2015 disposed on 21.09.2016 and W.P.No. 17048/2021 disposed on 20.09.2021. (i) This Court in the case of R. GAYATHRI Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES) AND OTHERS1 has held as follows: "The petitioner's husband held a Kerosene Oil Hawker licence under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Licensing Order. 1986 valid upto 31.12.2003 and on his death on 8.9.2003, having made an application for transfer of the said licence, on compassionate ground in terms of the notification dated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1772 WP No. 100594 of 2025 3.12.1984, which when refused by order dated 4.5.2006 Annexure B, on the premise that the notification dated 12.8.2003 Annexure C prescribed minimum educational qualification of 10th standard, has presented this petition to quash Annexure B and to declare Annexure C as not applicable to the petitioner and the like, as also for a mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to grant licence in petitioner's favour. 2. The petition is opposed by filing statement objections dated 18.12.2006 of the respondent inter alia contending that on and after coming into force of the notification dated 12.8.2003 Annexure C issued under Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992, prescribing a pass in the 10th standard as eligibility to run a Fair Price Shop and as the petitioner's qualification was a pass in 9th standard falling short of eligibility criteria, the claim of the petitioner for grant of fresh authorization on compassionate ground was not acceptable and that the order impugned is well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order impugned, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification Annexure C under Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control (Amendment) Order 2003 dated 12.8.2003 prescribing pass in 10th standard as eligibility to run Fair Price Shop in a particular area for the purpose of grant of authorization to open a fair price depot, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner since what was sought by the petitioner was a grant of fresh authorization to carry on business of retail vending of kerosene which her husband was carrying on in terms of Essential Commodities Order which did not prescribe any educational qualification. The State Govt. failed to notice that the Amendment Order 2003 Annexure C would - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1772 WP No. 100594 of 2025 have application to fresh candidates applying pursuant to a notification issued under CL(4) of PDS Control Order, 1992, fixing the eligibility as pass in 10th standard amongst other conditions. These conditions had no bearing on the claim of the petitioner for grant of fresh authorization on compassionate ground in terms of circular dated 21.7.1995. In that view of the matter, the order impugned is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed In the result, the petition is allowed in part. The order dated 4.5.2006 Annexure B is quashed and it is hereby declared that the notification dated 12.8.2003 Annexure C is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. A mandamus is issued directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law, in any event, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (ii) This Court in the case of SMT. B.V. GANGARATHNAMMA Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) AND OTHERS has held as follows: The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 17.01.2015 impugned at Annexure-G to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondents No.1 and 2 to transfer the authorization and licence in favour of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 25.07.2014 passed in W.P.No.33639/2014. 2. The petitioner is claiming transfer of authorization for distribution of the Kerosene in Licence No.3/91 which had been issued to the husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner died on 21.01.2014 and as such the petitioner had sought transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. At the first instance, when the endorsement dated 28.05.2014 was issued to the petitioner - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1772 WP No. 100594 of 2025 rejecting her claim on the ground that she does not satisfy the educational criteria and inasmuch as she had not completed her matriculation, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.33639/2014. This Court by the order dated 25.07.2014 on taking note of the order dated 21.11.2008 passed in W.P.No.8586/2006 as also the order dated 24.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.18787/2014, had set aside the endorsement and directed that the application of the petitioner be reconsidered. On reconsideration the impugned endorsement dated 17.01.2015 is issued wherein the application is once again rejected by stating that the petitioner does not satisfy the educational criteria of having completed the VII standard. It is in that view the petitioner is before this Court seeking benefit of the earlier order passed by this Court. 3. Learned Government Advocate would however point out that the issue that had arisen for consideration in W.P.No.33639/2014 was with regard to the insistence of matriculation qualification and not relating to the VII Standard. Hence, it is contended that the very benefit granted under the said order cannot be extended unless the petitioner satisfies the condition of completing the VII standard. 4. Though such contention is put forth by the learned Government Advocate, what is necessary to be noticed is that this Court in the earlier order had relied on the order dated 21.11.2008 passed in W.P.No.8586/2006. What had arisen for consideration in the said petition is as to whether the minimum educational qualification prescribed for making application for grant of authorisation could be insisted upon in respect of the application filed seeking transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. In that regard this Court had held that the educational qualification prescribed can only be - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1772 WP No. 100594 of 2025 insisted upon prospectively in respect of the fresh applications filed seeking authorization and cannot be made applicable to transfer of authorisation on compassionate grounds in respect of the authorisation which had been issued earlier. 5. If that be the position, when an application is considered for transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds either insisting on the matriculation or the lesser educational qualification of VII standard would not be justified as otherwise the very purpose of considering an application for compassionate transfer would be defeated. Therefore the endorsement dated 17.01.2015 is quashed. 6. A direction is issued to the first respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner and transfer the authorization which stood in the name of the husband of the petitioner to the name of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (iii) This Court in the case of HEMANTH KUMAR B O Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHER has 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1772 WP No. 100594 of 2025 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 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 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". In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgments rendered by a co-ordinate Benches (supra), I deem it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ petition is allowed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1772 WP No. 100594 of 2025 ii. The impugned endorsement dated 16.09.2022 issued by respondent No.2, bearing No.GI AA/NYA.AM/08/2022-23 is quashed. iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to re- consider the application of the petitioner for transfer of authorization bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order, within 12 weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.” 5. The learned AGA would not dispute the position of law as is laid down by this Court. 6. In that light, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsement dated 20.01.2025 issued by the 4th respondent is quashed. iii. The 4th respondent is directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner for transfer of authorization bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order, within 12 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1772 WP No. 100594 of 2025 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if not earlier. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-GTB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60