- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10730 WP No. 110926 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 110926 OF 2014 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O. SHIVARAYAPPA PUNNOJI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. HIREMUNAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM. - PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA V. BHAT ADVOCATE FOR SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA, HIREMUNAVALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM. 5. GOUDANNA MALLAPPA YALLUR THE CHAIRMAN OF PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA, HIREMUNAVALLI, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) SAROJA HANGARAKI Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.23 18:20:48 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10730 WP No. 110926 of 2014 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/23.09.2014 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT-THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM IN BRG. NO.AaPooVi:ADaA/ViVa-21(KNP-/2014/15). VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 27.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT-THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, IN BRG NO.FCS:17:RPR:2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, ALTERNATIVELY DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DATED:27.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT-THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, IN BRG. NO.FCS:17:RPR: 2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-H HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE AUTHORIZATION HELD BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF FAIR PRICE SHOP SITUATED AT HIREMUNAVALLI AND ETC.,. THIS WRIT 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 S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present writ petition has been filed calling in question the order at Annexure-G whereby the authorization to run the fair price shop was granted to the 5th respondent. The petitioner was the authorized holder of the licence as regards the fair price shop licence which had subsequently been granted to the 5th respondent in terms of Annexure-G. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10730 WP No. 110926 of 2014 2. It is made out from the facts that on the basis of certain complaints against the petitioner, authorization granted to run the fair price shop was cancelled. There were various proceedings challenging such cancellation of authorization which eventually was taken up in appeal and appeal having been rejected and the cancellation of authorization having been upheld, petitioner had preferred a revision before the first respondent. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that when his revision was still pending, the authorization was granted to the 5th respondent and accordingly the present petition has been filed contending that during the pendency of the revision petition authorization ought not to have been granted to the 5th respondent. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed a memo and placed before the Court the final order passed in the Revision Petition in Case No. 7 ECA 2014 whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner challenging - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10730 WP No. 110926 of 2014 the order canceling his authorization as well as against the appellate order dismissing his appeal, has finally been rejected by order dated 04.09.2015. 5. In light of the same, the question of calling in question the grant of authorization at Annexure-G to the 5th respondent does not arise as the grant of authorization is pursuant to the cancellation of authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop having attained finality. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without interfering with the grant of authorization to the 5th respondent at Annexure-G. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not aware of the order passed by the first respondent dated 04.09.2015 and it is not communicated to him. 7. Suffice it to state that this Court would not comment upon the order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the first respondent as such order is not the subject matter of the present proceedings. However, all contentions of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10730 WP No. 110926 of 2014 petitioner regarding the order dated 04.09.2015 are kept open. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE BVV,VP Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14