- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8432 WP No. 100894 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 100894 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: SHREEDEVI W/O. YAMANAPPA BASARIHAL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GORIPURA, KANAKAGERI, DIST: KOPPAL-583 283. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, TQ: & DIST: KOPPAL-583 231. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, KOPPAL, TQ: & DIST: KOPPAL-583 231. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, KOPPAL, TQ: & DIST: KOPPAL-583 231. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, KANAKAGIRI TALUK, DIST: KOPPAL-583 283. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10/11/2023 IN NO. FOOD/CR-1/2021-22 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND SUBSEQUENT NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO-02 IN NO.FOOD/CR-1/2023-24 BY ITS ORDER DATED 28/12/2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8432 WP No. 100894 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) Learned AGA is directed to take notice for the respondents. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the notifications dated 10.11.2023 and 28.12.2023 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner had applied for licence to open a Fair Price Shop in the area belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community for their benefit, on the application being invited by respondent No.2 for grant of licence to run fair price shop vide notification dated 10.11.2023. 4. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that, after the application was duly filled up and produced, the petitioner produced all the required documents. Respondent No.4 recommended for allotment - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8432 WP No. 100894 of 2025 of the licence for grant of licence to the petitioner. However, Respondent No.2 rejected allotment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished the relevant documents required for allotment as per the notification, fulfilling the terms and conditions for grant of licence to the individual category as specified in the notification. Learned counsel contends that, the petitioner belongs to SC/ST community and she has furnished the relevant certificate to the same and the fair price shop was to serve in the SC/ST locality. Therefore, respondent No.4, on perusing these records, had recommended for allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner. However, Respondent No.2 rejected the same on the ground that there is no handicap certificate or other relevant documents as required under the notification produced, thereby disentitling the petitioner for allotment of licence to run fair price shop. Learned counsel further contends that, the impugned order of rejection is contrary to the notification, and the petitioner ought to have been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8432 WP No. 100894 of 2025 allotted licence to run fair price shop by accepting her application. Hence, the petitioner seeks for quashing of said order passed by Respondent No.2. 5. Per contra, learned AGA representing the respondents State contends that, the notification issued by the respondents is very clear and specific, calling upon the individuals and the Society for allotment of fair price shops as per the gazette notification published. However, the petitioner, though recommended by respondent No.4, is not eligible to fit into the category of the notification as an individual and no documents are produced to show that the petitioner falls under the category “persons with bench mark disability category or persons of transgender category”. Under the circumstances, the order came to be passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the application of the petitioner, which does not call for interference as it is in accordance with the notification and hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8432 WP No. 100894 of 2025 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondents. 7. The notification is clear and there is no ambiguity in issuance of notification and also the categories specified in the notification. The petitioner claims to be SC/ST category person, but the notification does not earmark allotment of the fair price shop for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste. 8. Under the circumstances, since two categories are specified and the petitioner does not fall under any of those two categories, respondent No.2 is justified in rejecting allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner, as she does not fall within the said category. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.11.2023 passed by respondent No.2. The question of considering the subsequent notification dated 28.12.2023 would not arise in the present case. Hence this Court is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8432 WP No. 100894 of 2025 not inclined to pass any orders with regard to the notification issued on 28.12.2023. 9. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is dismissed. ii. The impugned order dated 10.11.2023 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G, is hereby quashed. iii. However, if any further notification is issued, petitioner is at liberty to apply for the same by fulfilling the necessary criteria, if any, sought for by them. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15