- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1912 WP No. 106891 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106891 OF 2024 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: MEHABOOB SAHEB JAMADAR S/O RIYAZ HAMED JAMADAR, AGE 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.14 RASULAPURA GALLI, H.M. DASANAKOPPA ROAD, RASULAPURA, WARD NO 11, DHARWAD 580001. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.H.MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UB HILLS ROAD, NEAR HINDI PRACHAR SABHA CIRCLE, MALMADDI, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA 580001. 3. JOINT DIRECTOR, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, DHARWAD 580001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V.MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, BEARING NO. ¸ÀA/J¸ïAiÀÄĦ/«ªÀ-261/2023-24 DATED 22.11.2023 REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO 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 AND ETC., Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1912 WP No. 106891 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 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 passed by Respondent No.3, Bearing No. ¸ÀA/J¸ïAiÀÄĦ/«ªÀ-261/2023-24 dated 22.11.2023 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 deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case in the interest on justice and equity.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Malikarjun Ashok Matti Vs. State of Karnataka and others1, wherein it is held as under: 1 W.P. No.105404/2018, DD: 04.12.2018 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1912 WP No. 106891 of 2024 “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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1912 WP No. 106891 of 2024 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 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1912 WP No. 106891 of 2024 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. 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. Learned AGA would not dispute the position of law as is considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court quoted supra. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1912 WP No. 106891 of 2024 4. For the aforesaid, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is disposed. (ii) The impugned order dated 19.02.2024 passed by respondent No.4 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. (iii) The respondent No.4 is directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33