- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25007 WP No. 3856 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 3856 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SUDHA T L AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D/O LATE T LAKSHMINARAYANA, RESIDING AT "ANASUYA", 1ST NAGARATHPET, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN AND TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 105 … 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, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101. Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25007 WP No. 3856 of 2025 3. THE THASILDAR SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 105. 4. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES 5TH FLOOR, MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 11.06.2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN HIS ORDER NO. AA NA SA/DRA/C/FPD PRA/66/2016-17 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order at Annexure-B wherein the request for transfer of authorisation was rejected on twin grounds viz., that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25007 WP No. 3856 of 2025 transferee i.e., the petitioner was the married daughter and such transfer was impermissible, in terms of Sl.No.9 of Regulation 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2016 ("Control Order", for short); the other ground of rejection was on the basis that the petitioner's father ought to have been within 65 years in terms of amended Clause 13 of the Food Control Order of 2016 however, he was aged 80 years at the time of his death. 3. Perused the order passed in W.P.No.7010/2023 dated 18.04.2023 Para 3 of the said order reads as follows: 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. G.V. HEMAVATHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1 wherein, the Co- ordinate Bench has held as follows: 1 W.P.No.51361/2019 disposed on 24.08.2022 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25007 WP No. 3856 of 2025 "Petitioner being a married daughter of deceased Fair Price Depot owner is grieving against the endorsement dated 23.09.2019 which denies transfer of authorization in her favour on the sole ground that by virtue of marriage she does not fit into the category of persons in whose favour such authorization can be transferred vide clause 13 of Public Distribution System Control Order 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case heavily banks upon the decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in BHUVANESHWARI V. PURANIK vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2021(2) KCCR 1446, He also argues for the reading down of Clause 13 of PDS Control Order, 2016 which discriminates against daughter of the family only on the ground of marriage. 2. Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents vehemently opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned endorsement and the reasons on which it has been structured. He contends that transfer of uthorization is governed by the provisions of law, namely the PDS Control Order 2016 which provides for transfer of authorization inter alia to the unmarried daughter of the deceased Fair Price Depot owner. In the absence of challenge to the said provision, no relief can be granted to the petitioner who is a married daughter. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant in the matter for the following reasons: a) The Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control Order) 2016 as amended in 2021 provides for transfer of authorization in the event of death of authorized - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25007 WP No. 3856 of 2025 dealer before attaining the age of 65 years inter alia in favour of unmarried daughter or a widowed daughter having no source of income. There is absolutely no reason to deny such a facility to the married daughter if she is otherwise having no source of income, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The discrimination of daughters of a person only on the ground of marriage, all other conditions remaining same falls foul of the equality class enacted in Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India. This view gains support from Coordinate bench a decision in BHUVANESHWARI supra. Of course, the said case arose in the realm of service law relating to compassionate appointment. However, that does not make any difference for the invocation of rule of equality. It is not beside the point that this decision has been affirmed by the Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No.20166/2021 disposed off on 17.12.2021. b) The contention of the learned AGA that the subject clause of the PDS Control Order being a piece of delegated legislation enjoys presumptive validity and therefore, unless challenged, no relief can be granted to the citizen is bit difficult to countenance. The decree of presumptive validity is very high in the case of legislations vide RAMAKRISHNA DALIMIA Vs. JUSTICE TENDULKAR, AIR 1958 SC 538. However, the subordinate legislations of the kind do not much enjoy such a presumption. Secondly, what is being sought for is the reading down of Clause 13 (iii) which mentions “unmarried daughter above the age of 18 years” to mean, ‘ any daughter’ who is otherwise not having the source of income. Such a course is open to the Writ Court which cannot deny relief to the aggrieved citizens by quoting some constitutional theories. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in DAVIS vs. MILLS, 194 U.S. 451 (1904) had observed: “Constitutions are intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories ...”. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25007 WP No. 3856 of 2025 In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned endorsement; matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent-Joint Director for consideration afresh for according transfer of authorization to the petitioner if she is otherwise eligible, regardless of her marriage. Time for compliance is eight weeks. No costs.." 4. Accordingly, taking note of the observation made by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.7010/2023, the contention that the petitioner being married daughter, the transfer is impermissible does not merit consideration. 5. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner's father ought to have been within 65 years in terms of amended Clause 13 of the Food Control Order of 2016, the observation made by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.16787/2024 vide order dated 09.09.2024 would be of relevance which reads as follows: 8. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 13559/2022, upheld the validity of the amended proviso to Clause 13, but it was dealing with a challenge - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25007 WP No. 3856 of 2025 related to the renewal of authorization on compassionate grounds. In W.P. No. 55097/2017, disposed of on 11.12.2017, this Court held that the condition regarding the age limit imposed in the amended Clause 13 was not sustainable. The decision in W.P.No.204335/2014, which was followed in W.P.No.43249/2017, ruled similarly. Furthermore, in W.P.No.103408/2023, disposed of on 12.06.2023, this Court reiterated that the restrictions introduced in the Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021 were prospective in nature and could not be applied retrospectively to authorizations granted under the un- amended Control Order of 1992. Therefore, these restrictions are only applicable to applicants seeking fresh authorizations and not to existing authorized dealers or their legal heirs. 6. It is clear from the above, in light of the assertion of the petitioner that petitioner's father was the holder of authorisation under the Food Control Order of 1992, insistence of requirement under the amended Clause 13 of Food Control Order of 2016 does not arise. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25007 WP No. 3856 of 2025 7. Accordingly, in light of the discussion made supra, the endorsement at Annexure-B is set aside. Respondent no.2 to pass orders and grant authorisation if other guidelines are met, within a period of six weeks from today. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP