- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30599 WP No. 19218 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19218 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: THE SECRETARY SHREE GOLLALESHWARI DEVI MAHILA SWA SAHAYA SNAGHA (REGD) DODDAGOLLARAHATTI, PARASURAMAPURA HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560 001. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA. 577501. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30599 WP No. 19218 of 2025 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA. 577501 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.K.P. YASHODHA., AGA ) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 24.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN NO.FSD/FPD/SUSPENSION/CR/16/2024-25 AT ANNEXURE - D; DECLARE THAT THE SECOND RESPONDENT LOSES THE JURISDICTION TO HOLD ANY ENQUIRY ON THE STRENGTH OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.06.2024 IN NO. FSD/FPD/SUSPENSION/CR/16/2024-25 AT ANNEXURE -D IN VIEW OF THE PROVISO TO CLAUSE 12(2) OF THE AMENDED KEC (PDS) CONTROL ORDER, 2016; ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO RESTORE THE ALLOTMENT OF FOOD GRAINS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY FORTHWITH. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30599 WP No. 19218 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a Society is aggrieved by the second respondent's order dated 24.06.2024 [Annexure-D], and the second respondent, by this order in exercise of the powers under Clause 12 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities [Public Distribution System] Control Order, 2016 [for short, 'Control Order, 2016'] and its amendments, has suspended the authorization issued to the petitioner. The second respondent's decision is purportedly because of the deficiencies noticed at the time of inspection on 13.06.2024. 2. Mr. H.C. Shivaramu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the allegations of deficiencies, as mentioned in the order, are factually incorrect and the report is that the petitioner has been distributing the food items to the card holders with no reason for complaint. The learned counsel submits that this Court must intervene because the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30599 WP No. 19218 of 2025 suspension of authorization can only be for ninety [90] days and within such period enquiry must be completed and that if for any reason enquiry is not completed within ninety [90] days, the suspension must stand revoked and authorization reinstated. Mrs.K.P.Yashodha, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of this ground. 3. The Clause 12 of the Control Order, 2016 reads as under. 12. Contravention of Conditions of Authorization: (1) No authorized dealer or agency under this order or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf, shall contravene any of the terms of conditions of the authorization or the provisions of this order and if any such dealer or agency or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the said terms of conditions or provisions, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, his authorization may be cancelled by order in writing by the Authorized Authority in respect of one or more of the essential commodities covered by that authorization: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30599 WP No. 19218 of 2025 Provided that no order shall be made under this clause unless the authorized dealer or agency has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) If the Authorized Authority is satisfied that prima facie the conditions of the authorization or the provisions of this order are contravened, he may, notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (1), suspend the authorization pending enquiry for cancellation of authorization. Provided that the enquiry shall be completed within 90 days from the date of suspension of the shop and that in case of cancellation of the authorization of the Fair Price Shop, new authorization shall be issued within 60 days of cancellation". 4. This Court must opine that indeed the enquiry contemplated for cancellation of authorization must be completed within 90 days from the date of suspension and if upon completion the reason for proposed cancellation stands vindicated, new authorization must be issued within the next 60 days. In the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner’s authorization is with effect from 24.06.2024, and it has been over 12 months since the suspension. If the enquiry is not even begun, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30599 WP No. 19218 of 2025 petitioner's authorization must be reinstated, and the suspension cannot continue. Therefore, this Court's intervention would be reasonable, but this Court must also observe that the second respondent, if there is a complaint, must ensure that there is a proper inspection and take suitable action. Hence, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.06.2024 [Annexure-D] is quashed directing the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner's authorization within a period of fifteen [15] days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [B] The second respondent will be at liberty to take action as is contemplated under the Control Order, 2016 if there is occasion. The second respondent shall take action under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30599 WP No. 19218 of 2025 Control Order, 2016 if there is cause and to ascertain the same if there is inspection. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr