- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17583 WP No. 109312 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 109312 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: ANAND M. GADAGAKAR S/O. LATE MARUTI GADAKAR, AGE. 50 YEARS, R/AT. KARAMARKAR LAYOUT, KC PARK, DHARWAD – 580 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. H. MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVENMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UB HILLS ROAD, HNEAR HINDI PRACHAR SABHA CIRCLE, MALMADDI, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA – 580 001. 3. JOINT DIRECTOR, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, DHARWAD – 580 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF RESPONDENT NO.3 PERTAINING TO THIS CASE AND EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ISSUE. A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-A BEARING NO SAM VI VA/S/-119/2022-23 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 24.03.2023 REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. B. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THIS VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.11 12:09:58 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17583 WP No. 109312 of 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURE-D ON THE COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS WITHOUT APPLYING THE RESTRICTIONS MENTIONED IN PROVISO TO CLAUSE 13 OF THE 2016 ORDER AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a. Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the Annexure-A bearing No.SAM.VI.VA/S/-119/2022-23 passed by Respondent No.3 dated 24.03.2023 rejecting the application of the petitioner in the interest of justice. b. Issue a writ of mandamus to respondent no.3 to consider the application of this petitioner Annexure-D on the compassionate grounds without applying the restrictions mentioned in proviso to clause 13 of the 2016 order. c. Issue any such other orders or directions as the Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordiante Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.105404/2018 disposed on 04.12.2018 which reads as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17583 WP No. 109312 of 2025 The petitioner’s father was running a fair price shop (shop No.84) in Hubballi and the authorization was being renewed from time to time. The petitioner’s father died on 16.10.2017 and the petitioner made an application to the respondent-Authorities seeking transfer of authorization in his name. The application is dated 25.06.2018. The Competent Authority i.e. respondent No.4-Assistant Director of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Hubballi issued an endorsement dated 17.07.2018 rejecting the application, while referring to the proviso to Rule 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Control Order, 2016’ for brevity). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S.H.Mittalkod submits that the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have passed several orders in this regard holding that the prescriptions incorporated in the subsequent control orders as regards the age of the applicant, minimum educational qualification, etc., are not applicable to the case of the petitioner since what was sought by the petitioner was not a grant of fresh authorization to carry on the business of retail vending and the same requirement as were made applicable while granting the authorization earlier should be made applicable. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that under the Control Order, 1992, which was applicable when the authorization was issued to the father of the petitioner, there is no prescription as is provided in the proviso to Rule 13 of the Control Order, 2016. 3. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents would submit that since the application is made in the year 2017, the provisions of law as on 2017 should be made applicable. 4. Having heard the learned counsels, what falls for consideration is whether the requirement of making the application within a period of 90 days as provided in the proviso to Clause 13 of the Control Order, 2016 would apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. Clause 13 of the Control Order, 2016 reads as follows: “13. Prohibition of Transfer of Authorization : No authorized dealer shall assign or transfer his - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17583 WP No. 109312 of 2025 authorization to any other person by and no person shall carry on business as a transferee or otherwise on behalf of any such authorized dealer. “Provided that the authorized authority may order for such transfer in the even of the death of the authorized dealer before 60 years of age, to the spouse or son or unmarried daughter, in case he or she is above 18 years and less than 30 years (or 40 years for unmarried daughters) of age having passed 10th standard and has applied for transfer within 90 days of the death of the authorized dealer, with the prior approval of the commissioner for a maximum period of 3 years viz., the period of validity of a fresh authorization.”” 5. The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in W.P.No.8586/2006 which was decided on 21.11.2008 and in many other writ petitions including W.P.No.55097/2017 dated 11.12.2017, W.P.No.204335/2014 dated 17.11.2017, have held that the provisions that were prevailing when the original authorization was granted has to be made applicable and not the new prescriptions that have come about subsequent to the issuance of authorization. 6. There is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner when he submits that this Court, while considering the proviso to Clause 13 of the Control Order, 2016 has held that the prescription of age and the minimum educational qualification for persons who seek transfer on compassionate grounds cannot be made applicable and directed the Authorities to consider their applications without insisting on the minimum educational qualification and the age limit prescribed in the proviso and when that being the case, the technical ground of making the application within a period of 90 days also should not be made applicable or should be considered with leniency. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that even if there is a delay in making the application seeking transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds, the same could be condoned and the respondent-Authorities should consider the application. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17583 WP No. 109312 of 2025 8. In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 17.07.2018 passed by respondent No.4 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No.4 is hereby directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner without going into the question of delay, in the light of the observations made above. 9. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. 3. In view of the issue being covered by the afore quoted judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the subject petitions deserves to be allowed. 4. Accordingly, the following order: i. The impugned order bearing No.¸ÀA«ªÀ/J¸À/ ¸ÀA«ªÀ/J¸À/ ¸ÀA«ªÀ/J¸À/ ¸ÀA«ªÀ/J¸À/---- 119/2022-23 dated 24.03.2023 passed by respondent No.3 stands quashed. ii. Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner without going into the question of delay bearing in mind the observations made by the Co-ordiante Bench of this Court in the course of the order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Kmv CT-ASC