- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2691 WP No. 100840 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100840 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: KHADARSAB S/O. ALLASAB JULAKATTI, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. LICENCE HOLDER OF FAIR PRICE SHOP, R/O. MUGANUR VILLAGE, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL- 583277. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL- 583231. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, KOPPAL- 583231. 4. THE TAHASILDHAR KUSHTAGI- 583277, KOPPAL DIST. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2691 WP No. 100840 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10-08-2017 BEARING NO.AAHAR. NYA. BE. AM/2016-17 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER / RESPONDENT NO. 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS FAIR PRICE SHOP BEARING SHOP NO.CSD/ 171/95-96 OF MUGANOOR VILLAGE OF KUSHTAGI TQ., KOPPAL DIST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENQUIRY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 14/12/2022 AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 21/12/2022, BEARING NO ANASA NYA BE AUM 2017-18 AND A NA SA. NYA BE AM-2016- 17 VIDE ANNEXURE - F AND F1 RESPECTIVELY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER-THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28-12-2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER FOR RUNNING THE FAIR PRICE SHOP, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDERS OR DIRECTION MAY DEEM FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, BE ISSUED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS WRIT 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 calling in question an order dated 10.08.2017 and the enquiry notice dated 14.12.2022. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. B. C. Jnanayya Swami appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2691 WP No. 100840 of 2025 Sri.Sharad V. Magadum representing the respondent- State. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner is granted authorization to run a fair price shop in the year 1995. After about 11 years, a show cause notice comes to be issued to the petitioner by the 4th respondent and consequent inspection of the property to conduct an inquiry. The running of the fair price shop and the authorization granted to run one such, is suspended by an order dated 10.08.2017. The suspension is followed by an enquiry notice on 14.12.2022. It is this that has driven the petitioner to this Court, not immediately, but after 3 years. 4. As observed hereinabove, the authorization of the petitioner comes to be suspended on 10.08.2017. The suspension and enquiry is regulated by the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Control Order’, for short). In terms of the Control Order, suspension of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2691 WP No. 100840 of 2025 authorization is dealt with under Section 12, it reads as follows: “12. Contravention of Conditions of Authorization: (1) No authorized dealer or agency under this order or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf, shall contravene any of the terms of conditions of the authorization or the provisions of this order and if any such dealer or agency or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the said terms of conditions or provisions, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, his authorization may be cancelled by order in writing by the Authorized Authority in respect of one or more of the essential commodities covered by that authorization: Provided that no order shall be made under this clause unless the authorized dealer or agency has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) If the Authorized Authority is satisfied that prima facie the conditions of the authorization or the provisions of this order are contravened, he may, notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (1), suspend the authorization pending enquiry for cancellation of authorization. “Provided that the enquiry shall be completed within 90 days from the date of suspension of the shop and that in case of cancellation of the authorization of the Fair Price Shop, new authorization shall be issued within 60 days of cancellation.” The afore-quoted proviso appended to Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Control Order mandates that the enquiry shall be completed within 90 days from the date of suspension of the shop, and in that case, cancellation of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2691 WP No. 100840 of 2025 new authorization shall be issued within 60 days of such cancellation. 5. Therefore, on placing the authorization of a fair price shop under suspension, inquiry against the said suspended authorization which runs the fair price shop, should be completed within 90 days. The dates are unequivocal. On 10.08.2017, the authorization stands suspended. Within 3 months, the enquiry ought to have been completed; notice of enquiry is issued not after 3 months, not after 3 years, but after 5 years. The enquiry is sought to be continued after issuance of the said notice, which was completely contrary to the afore-quoted mandate of the order. Therefore, on this short point that the State has not completed the enquiry within 90 days after placing the authorization of the petitioner, under suspension, the petition deserves to succeed. 4. The learned AGA would submit that alternative arrangements have been made in the light of suspension of the fair price shop. In the light of the arrangements - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2691 WP No. 100840 of 2025 being only alternative, and the petition succeeding the consequential benefits, also should flow in favour of the petitioner. 5. For the aforesaid reasons the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D qua the petitioner’s fair price shop stands quashed. iii. The impugned enquiry notice dated 14.12.2022 and the show cause notice dated 21.12.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 vide Annexures-F and F1 stand quashed. iv. Mandamus issues to the respondents to continue the authorization of the fair price shop of the petitioner, in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63