- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7118 WP No. 105593 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.105593 OF 2016 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: SAUNDATTI GRAMEENA MAHILA STRISHAKTHI, VIVIDA UDDESHAGAL SAHAKAR SANGA NIYAMITHA SAUNDATTI REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT LAXMI PRABHAIAH HIREMATH, AGE: 26 YEARS, R/O MUNAVALLI, TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. - PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMERS AFFAIRS, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-1. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMERS AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD), BELAGAVI, DISTRICT BELAGAVI. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, SAUNDATTI, TALUK SAUNDATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. 5. ANNAPURNA W/O CHANAMALAPPA NASHIPUDI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MUNAVALLI, TALUK SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R4 SRI. RAJSHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7118 WP No. 105593 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.02.2015, PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER NO.APUV/ADAA/VIVA-97/2006-07 VIDE ANNEXURE-J & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) Petitioner-Saundatti Grameena Mahila Strishakthi Sangha Niyamita, is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness or otherwise of order dated 20.02.2015 bearing No. APUV/ADAA/VIVA-97/2006-07(Annexure-J) granting authorization to run fair price depot in favour of respondent No.5. 2. Heard Sri H.M. Dharigond, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned A.G.A. for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Rajashekhar Burji, learned counsel for respondent No.5. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7118 WP No. 105593 of 2016 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a ‘Streeshakthi Sangha’ whereas the respondent No.5 is an individual. In pursuance to the notice calling application for sanction of authorization to run fair price depot at Munavalli Savadatti Taluk, the petitioner, respondent No.5 as well as other six applicants applied. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the authorization was granted to one Sri Sai Mandir Seva Samiti ®. The said allotment was under challenge. The second respondent by order dated 19.07.2014 set aside the authorization, remanded the matter back to the third respondent. On remand, the third respondent issued authorization to the respondent No.5 to run fair price shop at Munavalli village, Savadatti taluk. The said order is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. Sri H.M. Dharigond would contend that the authorization issued in favour of respondent No.5 to run fair price depot is contrary to the material on record. He - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7118 WP No. 105593 of 2016 submits that the same is contrary to amended notification dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure-A). Learned counsel would further submit that under amended notification the authorization shall be granted to an institution or a person in the order of priority specified under sub Clause (1). He submits that the allotment of fair price shop in respect of respondent No.5 is contrary to the priority specified under sub Clause (1) of Clause-6 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control (Amendment) Order, 2014. 6. It is further submitted that an individual would get priority at the end and whereas Stree Shakthi Sangha would get priority over an individual. Thus, Sri H.M. Dharigond would submit that issuance of authorization to individual, i.e., respondent No.5, is wholly contrary to the rules and material on record. Thus he prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned A.G.A. for respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as Sri Rajashekhar Burji, learned - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7118 WP No. 105593 of 2016 counsel for respondent No.5 would submit that petitioner has no locus to challenge the issuance of authorization to respondent No.5 since petitioner was under liquidation as on the date of issuance of authorisation to run fair price shop to respondent No.5. 8. It is submitted that liquidation of the petitioner was set aside subsequently, i.e., on 21.07.2015 but it is submitted that as on the date of consideration of the application the petitioner Sangha was under liquidation. As such the application of the petitioner was not considered. However they submit that the petitioner could not have challenged the issuance of authorization to respondent No.5 in the above circumstances. 9. I have heard arguments of learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the entire writ petition papers. The only point that arises for determination is: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7118 WP No. 105593 of 2016 Whether the impugned order of authorization issued to respondent No.5 to run fair price shop at Munavalli village Saundatti Taluk requires interference? 10. My answer to the above point is in the negative for the following: REASONS 11. In pursuance to the notice inviting application for allotment of licence to run fair price shop at Munavalli village of Saundatti Taluk, the petitioner as well as six others applied initially. Authorisation was issued in favour of Sai Mandir Seva Samiti ® which was challenged before the second respondent. The second respondent by order dated 19.07.2014 set aside the same and remanded the matter back to the third respondent. Respondent No.3 on remand, ordered issuance of authorization to the respondent No.5 on considering the application of the petitioner, respondent No.5 as well as other applicants. 12. As contended by the learned counsels for the respondents, petitioner has no locus to challenge the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7118 WP No. 105593 of 2016 issuance of authorization in respect of respondent No.5 since as on the date of consideration of issuance of licence to run fair price shop in favour of respondent No.5, the petitioner Sangha was under liquidation. The liquidation was under challenge, was set aside subsequently on 21.07.2015, long after issuance of licence to run fair price shop in favour of respondent No.5. In view of the fact that petitioner Sangha was under liquidation as on the date of considering the application for issuance of authorization, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the authorization issued in favour of respondent No.5. Thus I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly it is rejected. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12