- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11896-DB WA No. 100563 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 100563 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: ISHWAR SANGAM S/O. LATE CHANDAPPA SANGAM, AGE: 65 YEARS, R.AT NO. JAYANAGAR, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI-580021. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. H. MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11896-DB WA No. 100563 of 2025 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UB HILLS ROAD, NEAR HINDI PRACHAR SABHA CIRCLE, MALMADDI, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA-580001. 3. JOINT DIRECTOR, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.105153/2025 (GM- PDS) DATED 29.07.2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY REJECTING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 08.07.2025 AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.3 TO TRANSFER THE FAIR PRICE SHOP LICENSE TO THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11896-DB WA No. 100563 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present appeal is filed by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge aggrieved by the order passed in the writ petition whereby, the petition came to be rejected. 2. Parties are referred to by their rank in the writ proceedings for the purpose of convenience. 3. The writ petition was filed calling in question correctness of the endorsement dated 08.07.2025 at Annexure-A whereby the application made by the petitioner seeking for transfer of authorization consequent to the death of his mother who was the authorized holder came to be rejected on the ground that the age of the applicant was above 65 years and it was impermissible in such cases to transfer authorization in light of the Clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11896-DB WA No. 100563 of 2025 4. The learned Single Judge by the order has rejected the petition with the reasoning as found in para 3 of the order which reads as under: “3. On perusal of the cause title and the verifying affidavit filed along with the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner had attained the age of 65 years as on the date of filing the petition. In terms of the applicable rules, once an authorized dealer attains the age of 65 years, renewal of authorization is not permissible. Accordingly, the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds to the petitioner, who has already crossed the age of 65 years, is also impermissible and cannot be sustained.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the restriction and transfer of authorization in case the authorized owner is dead as contained in Clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 would apply prospectively and such restriction cannot apply retrospectively. It is contended in the present case that as the authorization was issued in the year 2003, the restrictions imposed by amendment of Clause 13 after 2016 cannot be a bar for transfer of authorization insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Reliance is placed on various orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11896-DB WA No. 100563 of 2025 No.104186/2022, 105404/2018 and in Writ Petitions No.765/2024 and connected matters. 6. Perused the order passed in Writ Petition No.765/2024. The relevant observations made are found at para Nos.6 to 8 and 10 read as follows: “6. Clause 13 of the unamended Public Distribution System (Control Order, 1992) dealt with the prohibition of the transfer of authorization. It states that no authorized dealer shall assign or transfer their authorization to any other person, nor shall any person carry on business on behalf of such an authorized dealer. However, a proviso to Clause 13 allows for the transfer of authorization in the event of the death of an authorized dealer, with prior approval of the Government, to the spouse, son, or unmarried daughter of the deceased. 7. Subsequent amendments to Clause 13, made in 2016, 2017, and 2021, introduced restrictions on the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. The amended provisions prohibit such transfers if the authorized dealer was over the age of 65 at the time of death or if the transferee had not completed the 10th standard and did not apply for the transfer within 90 days of the death. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11896-DB WA No. 100563 of 2025 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. 10. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench clearly establishes that there can be no discrimination between married and unmarried daughters when it comes to the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. Discriminating against daughters based solely on their marital status violates the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.” 7. In light of the enunciation of law by the learned Single Judge which we find was holding the field as on the date of passing of the order in the present case, the learned Single Judge ought to have passed an order in terms of the law as contained in the orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this court as referred to above. 6. Accordingly, we find no reason to take a different stand as that taken by the learned Single Judge in the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court referred to above. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11896-DB WA No. 100563 of 2025 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 29.07.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.105153/2025 by the learned Single Judge is set-aside. (iii) The endorsement at Annexure-A is set-aside. (iv) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider application made by the petitioner for transfer of authorization and pass orders within a period of three months from today. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14