- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7117 WP No. 103100 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.103100 OF 2016 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: D.S. MOTHI NAIK DECEASED BY HIS LRS, SRI. D.M. RAMACHANDRA NAIK S/O D.S. MOTHI NAIK, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, KUMARANAHALLI TANDA, POST. NAGTIBASAPURA, TQ. HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST.BALLARI. - PETITIONER (BY SRI. K ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKASA SAUDHA, BENGALURU. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (FOOD), BALLARI. 3. COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONNINGAM ROAD AT BENGALURU. 4. THE TASHILDHAR, HADAGALI TQ, DIST. BALLARI. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.01.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN PARISHILANA (REVISION) APPLICATION NO.ANASA 04 ECA/2009 AS AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7117 WP No. 103100 of 2016 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness or legality of the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner canceling the authorization to run fair price shop and forfeit a sum of Rs.46,368/- and also order dated 22.01.2016 (Annexure- E) passed by the first respondent. 2. Heard Sri K. Anandkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned A.G.A. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was granted licence to run fair price shop during the year 1993-94 at Koppalu Katti Tanda and Govindapura Tanda. It is stated that father of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7117 WP No. 103100 of 2016 petitioner was running the said fair price shop without any complaint and in adherence to the terms and conditions of authorization. However it is submitted that a show cause notice dated 10.11.2006 was issued to the petitioner’s father alleging that during the period from January, 2006 to June, 2006 non writing of stock and daily transactions; not producing the records when the inspection team asked to produce the records; non mentioning of the quantity and rate of the commodity supplied in the A.Y. Bill book, short supply of food grains and also not exhibiting the stock and rates in the notice board. The petitioner is stated to have submitted reply on 22.01.2007. The said show cause notice was based on the report dated 30.10.2006 of the Food Inspector. The Competent Authority, the Deputy Commissioner, based on the report and on the statement of the card holders and after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner passed impugned order dated 22.06.2011 cancelling the authorization granted to the petitioner’s father to run fair price shop and also to forfeit certain amount. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7117 WP No. 103100 of 2016 petitioner’s father aggrieved by the same, filed revision before the first respondent. The revisional authority also on appreciation of the material on record and the order passed by the second respondent, Deputy Commissioner, confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel Sri K. Anand Kumar would submit that the petitioner was unwell during the said period and his illness prevented him from writing the stock book which led to other allegations as indicated in the show cause notice. He would submit that the petitioner had produced medical certificate dated 06.02.2008 and 04.02.2008 before the second respondent, Deputy Commissioner. Without appreciating the explanation submitted by the petitioner as well as the medical certificates placed on record, the second respondent has come to a wrong conclusion which is confirmed by the first respondent without application of mind. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7117 WP No. 103100 of 2016 5. Learned counsel would submit that for the alleged fault of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner is being made to suffer. Thus the learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned A.G.A. points out that the allegations are admitted by the father of the petitioner and as such the licence to run the fair price shop is cancelled. Thus learned A.G.A. would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point to be considered is as to whether the impugned orders under challenge require interference. 8. My answer to the above point is in the negative for the following: REASONS 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted licence to run fair price depot in Koppalu Katti Tanda and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7117 WP No. 103100 of 2016 Govindapura Tanda during the year 1993-94. The petitioner was issued with show cause notice dated 10.11.2006 with the following allegations. “1. zÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ ¥sÀ®PÀ ºÁQgÀĪÀÅ¢®è; 2. d£ÀªÀj 2006 jAzÀ dÆ£ï 2006 gÀªÀgÉUÉ zÁ¸ÁÛ£ÀÄ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁgÁl ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀ §gÉAiÀÄzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ; 3. zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ; 4. d£ÀªÀj 2006 jAzÀ dÆ£ï 2006 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ©.¦.J¯ï. PÁqÀÄðzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¤UÀ¢ ¥Àr¹zÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtQÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ «vÀj¹ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ; 5. JJªÉÊ ©¯ï ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀzÀ°è «vÀgÀuÁ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ºÁUÀÆ zÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ; 6. d£ÀªÀj 2006 jAzÀ dÆ£ï 2006 gÀªÀgÉUÉ 366 ©¦J¯ï PÁqÀÄðUÀ½UÉ PÀrªÉÄ «vÀj¹ 6 wAUÀ½UÉ MlÄÖ 110.40 QéA CQÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 44.16 QéA UÉÆâü zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ; 7. ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ CfðzÁgÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÉÄîä£À« ¸À°è¹, ¢£ÁAPÀ:14.11.2008gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.” 10. During the course of enquiry the petitioner admitted the allegations made against him. The statement of the petitioner reads as follows: “£À£Àß°è G½zÀAvÀºÀ CQÌ UÉÆâüAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è £ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ±ÀĨsÀ PÁAiÀÄðUÀ½UÉ, ¸À¨sÉ ¸ÀªÀiÁgÀA¨sÀUÀ½UÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ ¥ÀrvÀgÀ aÃn E®èzÉ EgÀĪÀ PÀqÀÄ §qÀªÀjUÉ «vÀgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ, £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAr®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß DgÉÆÃUÀå ¸Àj E®èzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ¨É¯É CAUÀrUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¸ÁÖPï, ¢£ÀªÀ», ºÁUÀÆ ©¯ï ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §gÉAiÀÄzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ." - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7117 WP No. 103100 of 2016 11. Moreover the show cause notice was based on the report of the Food Inspector dated 20.10.2006 which was also made available to the petitioner. The statement of the card holders recorded by the Food Inspector during his visit was also forwarded to the petitioner. Thus all the material against the petitioner is supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend the allegations, but the petitioner admitted the allegations made against him. 12. Moreover the petitioner has produced inpatient medical certificates dated 06.02.2008 for the period from 26.11.2005 to 12.12.2005, which would be for around 15 days. The medical certificate dated 04.02.2008 is for the period from 06.01.2008 to 04.02.2008. Thus the contention of the petitioner that he was unwell for more than six months which led to certain allegations also cannot be accepted. 13. When the allegations are admitted and the medical certificates produced by the petitioner are only for a short - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7117 WP No. 103100 of 2016 period, I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the first and the second respondent. 14. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE BVV, ct:vp LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10