- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14511 WP No. 106408 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106408 OF 2023 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ S/O FAKKERSHETTY ROODAGI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: HANAMAPUR VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI- 581211. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VIDYAVATI M. KOTTURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI- 581110. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI- 581110. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, THE OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR, RANNEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI- 581110. 4. RAJESHWARI MAHILA MANDALI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, HANUMAPUR VILLAGE, RANNEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI- 581115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.07 11:53:46 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14511 WP No. 106408 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, A) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO. AaNaSa/Vahi/232/2022-23 DATED 01-09-2022 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-M. B) ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REISSUE THE PDS LICENSE AND PASS AN ORDER AS PER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07-09-2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 prayer: a. “Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement vide no. AaNaSa/Vahi/232/2022-23 dated 01-09-2022 issued by respondent no.3 vide Annexure-M. b. Issue a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent no.2 to reissue the PDS license and pass an order as per the representation dated 07-09-2023 as per Annexure-N. c. Issue such other writ, order or direction as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Smt.Vidyavati M. Kotturshettar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath, learned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14511 WP No. 106408 of 2023 AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri.Gurudev Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 3. The issue in the present lis revolves around the cancellation of the petitioner’s licence to run a fair price shop by the State Government on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner was granted a licence on 27.08.2012 to operate a fair price shop. During the subsistence of the said licence, on allegations of violation of Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1975, a criminal case came to be registered against the petitioner in C.C. No. 236 of 2014. Consequent upon the registration of the said case, the petitioner’s licence was cancelled by issuance of a show-cause notice and after submission of a reply thereto. 5. In the interregnum, on the ground that the licence stood cancelled, the ration cards attached to the petitioner’s fair price shop were handed over to respondent No. 4. 6. The petitioner challenged the said cancellation order in W.P. No.106305/2015, which came to be dismissed by order dated 20.11.2020, observing that the petitioner had allegedly stored 970 litres of kerosene without permission. The petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14511 WP No. 106408 of 2023 preferred a writ appeal, which also came to be dismissed, the Division Bench holding that no interference was warranted. 7. Thereafter, pursuant to the said orders, the authority took note of the petitioner’s reply to the show-cause notice and passed the impugned order cancelling the licence, solely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case in C.C. No. 236 of 2014. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has since been acquitted of all charges in C.C. No.236 of 2014, the trial court having categorically held that no kerosene was stored by the petitioner and that the complaint was baseless. It is therefore contended that, since the only ground for cancellation of the licence has now ceased to exist, the licence and the associated ration cards ought to be restored to the petitioner. 9. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents seeks to justify the impugned order, relying upon the documents appended to the statement of objections. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4, Sri.Gurudev Gachchinamath, admits that the cancellation of the petitioner’s licence was based solely on the pendency of the said criminal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14511 WP No. 106408 of 2023 case. However, he contends that there were also other allegations against the petitioner. 11. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 has no locus standi to interfere with the petitioner’s rights under a licence granted by the competent authority, and that the possession of the cards by respondent No.4 was only an interim or temporary arrangement. 12. The sequence of events narrated above is undisputed. The cancellation order was founded solely on the pendency of the criminal case in C.C. No. 36 of 2014. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has now been acquitted in the said proceedings. 13. If the pendency of the criminal case was the only ground for cancellation of the licence, and the petitioner has now been acquitted, the very basis of the cancellation ceases to exist. The State is, therefore, obligated to reconsider the case of the petitioner for restoration of the licence and the cards attached thereto. 14. Consequently, the impugned endorsement dated 01.09.2022 cannot be sustained in law, as it runs contrary to the above principle. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14511 WP No. 106408 of 2023 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition deserves to succeed on this solitary ground. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The Respondent-State shall now consider the case of the petitioner for restoration of the license to operate a fair price shop, along with the cadres attached thereto, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order. iii. Until such reconsideration takes place, the cadres that have been temporarily handed over to Respondent No.4 shall not be disturbed. iv. All the aforesaid actions, including the consideration and bringing the matter to its logical conclusion, shall be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40