- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB WA No. 100131 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 100131 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: SRI SHIVANAND S/O VITHAL DURGI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. R/O GORAGUDDI, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SADIQ N GOODWALA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, M.S. BUILDING, VASANTH NAGAR BENGALURU-01 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS , BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, FOOD CIVIL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, BELAGAVI DIST. BELAGAVI-590001 4. THE TAHASILDAR SAUNDATTI, TQ. SAUNDATTI DIST. BELAGAVI-591126 5. SRI MAHADEV S/O SIDDAPPA SOMANATTI AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. NIL, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB WA No. 100131 of 2025 R/O BOLAKADABI, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) (SRI. SRINAND A PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.106605/2024 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The appellant, respondent No.5 before the Writ Court, aggrieved by order dated 12.02.2025 passed in WP No.106605/2024, is before this Court in this intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. 2. The parties would be referred to as per their rankings before the Writ Court. The appellant was respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 herein was the petitioner before the Writ Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 filed application for allotment of Fair - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB WA No. 100131 of 2025 Price Shop at Bolakadabi village, Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi District, under Special Category in pursuance to Paper Notice dated 15.9.2023 (Annexure-A). The application of respondent No.5 was favoured by allotting Fair Price Shop at Bolakadabi village. Challenging the same, the petitioner was before the appellate Authority. When the appellate Authority refused to grant interim order, the petitioner was before this Court in WP No.107728/2023. The learned Single Judge granted interim order of stay and subsequently, disposed off the petition directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate Authority and also directed the appellate Authority to consider the appeal within 30 days. Thereafter, the appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 3.9.2024 confirming the rejection of the claim of the petitioner seeking allotment of Fair Price Shop. Questioning the same, the petitioner was before this Court in WP No.106605/2024. The said writ petition was allowed quashing the impugned order of allotment of Fair Price Shop in favour of respondent No.5, with a direction to allot the Fair Price Shop in favour of the petitioner, if he fulfills all other conditions. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 is in appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB WA No. 100131 of 2025 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sadiq N Goodwala for the appellant, learned AGA Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath for respondents No.1 to 4 and learned counsel Sri. Srinand A Pachhapure for respondent No.5. Perused the writ appeal papers. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5/appellant herein would submit that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition is contrary to the material facts on record. Learned counsel inviting attention to the conditions stated in the notice inviting applications would submit that the petitioner would not possess the requisite premises/area to store the ration articles for a period of two months and he would also not possess the business premises. Therefore, he submits that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in quashing the allotment made in favour of respondent No.5 and directing allotment of Fair Price Shop in favour of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel Sri. Sadiq N Goodwala further contends that the application of the petitioner is defective. Referring to the application of the petitioner at Annexure-B, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB WA No. 100131 of 2025 learned counsel submits that the petitioner had not applied for allotment of Fair Price Shop meant for retail dealers, but he had applied under the category of Karnataka Food & Civil Supplies Corporation. Therefore, he submits that respondent No.2/authority could not have considered the defective application of the petitioner. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ appeal. 7. Learned AGA, on the other hand, would submit that both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 are not eligible for consideration of their application for allotment of Fair Price Shop, in pursuance of public notice dated 15.9.2023 (Annexure-A). Learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the allotment of Fair Price Shop to the petitioner. He submitted that instead of said direction, learned Single Judge ought to have permitted respondent No.2 to initiate fresh process for allotment of Fair Price Shop at Bolakadabi village. 8. Learned counsel Sri. Srinand A Pachhapure for the petitioner supporting the order of the learned Single Judge would submit that respondent No.5/appellant is not eligible even to apply for allotment of Fair Price Shop at Bolakadabi - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB WA No. 100131 of 2025 village. Inviting attention of this Court to Annexure-A, paper notice dated 15.9.2023, learned counsel would submit that for allotment of Fair Price Shop, one of the eligibility criteria is that the applicant should be a resident of the same village and he must produce the residential certificate. Since respondent No.5 is the resident of Goraguddi village, he would not be entitled to apply for allotment of Fair Price Shop at Bolakadabi village. Learned counsel pointing out to Condition No.5 in Clause-2 of paper notice, would submit that a person who possesses space for storing the ration articles for a period of two months, would be eligible for allotment of Fair Price Shop. He submits that it is not that he should have taken the area/place on lease, but it only states that he should possess the area indicated therein. In that circumstances, learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge is justified in directing the allotment of Fair Price Shop to the petitioner. With regard to contention of respondent No.5 that the petitioner’s application is defective, learned counsel Sri. Srinand A Pachhapure submits that by mistake or inadvertence in Column No.3, the petitioner has written ‘Applicable’ against Karnataka Food & Civil Supplies Corporation. He would further submit that the address - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB WA No. 100131 of 2025 provided under ‘Address & inner dimensions’, by the petitioner would suggest the petitioner’s request for individual allotment of Fair Price Shop. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, the only point that would fall for consideration in this appeal is as to, whether the impugned order of the learned Single Judge requires interference? 10. Answer to the above point would be in the ‘negative’ for the following reasons: 11. Admittedly, the petitioner is a resident of Bolakadabi village and respondent No.5 is a resident of Goraguddi village. Under paper notice dated 15.9.2023 (Annexure-A), respondent No.3 invited applications from eligible applicants for allotment of Fair Price Shop to physically challenged persons under special category. The condition for allotment or criteria/eligibility for making application by physically challenged persons stated at column No.2 reads as follows: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB WA No. 100131 of 2025 • CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ¨É¯É CAUÀr £ÀqɸÀ®Ä PÀ¤µÀ× 2 wAUÀ¼À ¥ÀrvÀgÀ zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀܼÁªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀ §UÉÎ CxÀªÁ ¨ÁrUÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀĽUÉAiÀÄ C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ zÁR¯É ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. F ¸ÀܼÀªÀÅ ¥ÀrvÀgÀ aÃnzÁgÀjUÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÀܼÀªÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. (ªÀĽUÉ ¨sÁªÀavÀæ ¸À»vÀ ®UÀwÛ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ). • ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄgÉA§ §UÉÎ gÀºÀªÁ¹ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ºÁdgÀ¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 12. It is not in dispute that both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 are physically challenged persons and they would be entitled to make application under the category ‘physically challenged’. However, respondent No.5 would not fulfill the condition No.6 under Clause 2. Condition No.6 under Clause 2 would state that the applicant shall be a resident of particular village for which the allotment of Fair Price Shop is called for and he shall produce the residential certificate. Admittedly, respondent No.5 is a resident of Goraguddi village and therefore, he would not be entitled for allotment of Fair Price Shop in the village of Bolakadabi of Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi District. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the petitioner also would not be entitled for allotment of Fair Price Shop, since he would not possess the area or space required for storing the food articles for two months. With - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB WA No. 100131 of 2025 regard to premises to run the fair price shop, Rule 5 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2016 would be relevant. Rule 5(1)(b) would state that one should be in possession of suitable business premises with sufficient space to store all the essential commodities and should have separate place for storing food grains and kerosene. 14. The inspection report submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector produced along with memo dated 3.3.2025 filed by the learned counsel for the appellant indicates that the premises obtained by respondent No.5 on lease is fit for carrying on Fair Price Shop. In addition to the premises owned by the petitioner, the petitioner has also undertaken that if Fair Price Shop is allotted, he would take a place on rent, which is recorded by the learned Single Judge. 15. Whether respondent No.5 possesses sufficient premises at Bolakadabi village would not come to the aid of respondent No.5, since he is not the resident of Bolakadabi village. The petitioner is eligible for making application for allotment of Fair Price Shop. Respondent No.5 would not have - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB WA No. 100131 of 2025 locus to question the allotment of Fair Price Shop in favour of the petitioner. 16. The contention that the application of the petitioner is defective and respondent No.3 ought not to have considered the said application would not merit any consideration. We have perused the application of the petitioner, which is placed on record at Annexure-B. By mistake or inadvertence, the petitioner has stated “Applicable” against column ‘Karnataka Food & Civil Supplies Corporation’, but the application is by individual (petitioner) and under the column ‘Address & inner dimensions’, the petitioner has stated that “At Home Premises at Bolakadabi”, and the column against ‘Business Premises’, the petitioner has stated “Home Premises”, which would mean that the application is by individual to carryout Fair Price Shop at Home premises. 17. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4225-DB WA No. 100131 of 2025 Pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13