- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53773-DB W.A. No.270/2023 C/W W.A. No.268/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.270/2023 (GM-PDS) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.268/2023 (GM-EC) IN W.A. No.270/2023: BETWEEN: SRI. K.P. NATARAJU S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O. PINDIPAPANAHALLI KOTHANUR POST, SIDDALAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA-563101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101. 2. THE THASILDAR SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA-563101. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53773-DB W.A. No.270/2023 C/W W.A. No.268/2023 3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560052. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) KOALR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101. 5. SRI. P.G. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O SRI. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O PINDIPAPANAHALLI KOTHANUR POST SIDDALAGHATTA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-573101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADV., FOR C/R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.14116/2015 DATED 12/12/2022 ALONG WITH THE ORDER PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION NO.42/2023 DATED 31/01/2023 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION IN WP NO.14116/2015 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN W.A. NO.268/2023: BETWEEN: SRI. K.P. NATARAJU S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O. PINDIPAPANAHALLI KOTHANUR POST - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53773-DB W.A. No.270/2023 C/W W.A. No.268/2023 SIDDALAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA-563101. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER THE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560052. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101. 3. THE THASILDAR SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA-563101. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET- ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.55662/2014 DATED 12/12/2022 ALONG WITH THE ORDER PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION NO.42/2023 DATED 31/01/2023 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION IN WP NO.55662/2014 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & EQUITY. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53773-DB W.A. No.270/2023 C/W W.A. No.268/2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) These appeals are filed by the appellant under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the common order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14116/2015 (GM-PDS) c/w W.P.No.55662/2014 (GM-EC) and order dated 31.01.2023 passed in R.P.No.42/2023. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in W.A.No.270/2023. 3. Sri.Narasimharaju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing W.P.No.14116/2015 and dismissing W.P.No.55662/2014 filed by the appellant, without appreciating the material available on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that in W.P.No.17731/2004, it was clearly held that the application was filed within time by the appellant. It is further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53773-DB W.A. No.270/2023 C/W W.A. No.268/2023 submitted that the respondent No.5 did not have the required educational qualification to grant the authorization as he was only a 7th standard pass, whereas the authorization required a qualification of SSLC. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeals. 4. Per contra, Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for respondent No.5 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the learned Single Judge, after considering the material on record and the judicial precedents has rightly confirmed the order dated 06.11.2002 passed by the respondent No.4, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 6. The material on record indicates that the appellant and the respondent No.5, in response to a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53773-DB W.A. No.270/2023 C/W W.A. No.268/2023 notification issued on 28.08.2002 for grant of authorization to a public distribution shop at Pindipapanahalli Village, Shidlaghatta Taluk, filed applications before the respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, Kolar. The respondent No.4, on consideration of the applications passed an order dated 06.11.2002 holding that only the application filed by the respondent No.5 has fulfilled all the requirements and consequently, rejected the application filed by the appellant. The said order was assailed before the respondent No.3 which was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 26.03.2004. The appellant and another approached this Court in W.P.No.17731/2004 challenging the order of the respondent No.3, wherein it was held that the application filed by the appellant was rejected on the ground that it was filed after the prescribed time and was not in accordance with law and the matter was remanded back to respondent No.4 for fresh consideration of the applications filed by the appellant as well as the respondent No.5. 7. The respondent No.4, on re-consideration held that the respondent No.5 was not eligible on the account of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53773-DB W.A. No.270/2023 C/W W.A. No.268/2023 having passed only 7th standard, which is not as per the prescribed qualification and proceeded to allow the application filed by the appellant. The respondent No.5 assailed the order of the respondent No.4 before the respondent No.3 who passed an order dated 02.01.2006 and set aside the order of the respondent No.4 and held that the application of the appellant could not have been considered as it was not in the prescribed format and also held in favour of the respondent No.5 that as on the date of the notification calling for applications, the prescribed qualification was only 7th standard. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the respondent No.4 with an additional direction that if the respondent No.4 found that neither of the applications are in accordance with law then a new notification calling for applications can be issued. 8. The appellant filed W.P.No.2307/2006 against the order of the respondent No.3 and respondent No.5 questioned the order of the respondent No.3 regarding the issuance of fresh notification by filing W.P.No.2266/2006. The writ petitions were heard together and vide order dated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53773-DB W.A. No.270/2023 C/W W.A. No.268/2023 18.09.2007, it was held that the directions issued to by the respondent No.3 that fresh notification can be issued by the respondent No.4 would go against the direction of this Court in the earlier round of litigation. It was also noticed that the appellant had not filed the application in the prescribed format and had not produced all the requisite documents and hence, the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to re-consider the applications in view of the findings in the writ petition. The respondent No.4 once again considered the applications and held that the application of the appellant was not in the prescribed format and the application filed by Respondent No.5 also was not in line with the prescription as per the notification dated 12.08.2003, wherein a person must have passed SSLC for grant of authorization. The respondent No.1 cancelled the notification and issued fresh notification calling for applications. This order of the respondent No.1 was challenged before the respondent No.3 in Appeal Nos.1/2014-15 and 11/2014-15. The respondent No.3 by order dated 19.07.2014 upheld the order of the respondent - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53773-DB W.A. No.270/2023 C/W W.A. No.268/2023 No.1 and rejected both the appeals. The order of the respondent No.3 was further assailed by both the parties in W.P.Nos.14116/2015 and 55662/2014. 9. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the contentions raised and considering the material on record passed the impugned order. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order rejected the contentions of the appellant solely on the ground that there is a specific format in which an application is sought to be filed, whereas the appellant did not follow the prescribed format and the application was written on a plain paper. Insofar as the application of the respondent No.5 was concerned, the learned Single Judge clearly held that as on the date of the notification calling for application, there was no prescription of an educational qualification and the same only came vide notification on 12.08.2003, which is a year later from the notification calling for application. Hence, the said prescription could not be applied to the instant case and proceeded to confirm the original order of the respondent No.4 dated 06.11.2002. We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53773-DB W.A. No.270/2023 C/W W.A. No.268/2023 Single Judge as it is clear that the prescribed format was not followed by the appellant in filing the application and now he cannot seek for consideration of his application. The contention of the appellant that the respondent No.5 did not hold the appropriate educational qualification has no merit, as the learned Single Judge has recorded a clear finding to this effect that the prescription only came into force after one year from the notification under which the application was filed. The learned Single Judge rightly relied on the decision of this Court in the case of R.GAYATHRI Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1, wherein under similar circumstances, it was settled that the subsequent notification issued on 12.08.2003 would not be made applicable to an application made under the notification on a prior date. Hence, we do not find any error in the impugned common order passed by the learned Single Judge and subsequent order passed under the review petition. 1 W.P.No.8586/2006 dt. 21.11.2008 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53773-DB W.A. No.270/2023 C/W W.A. No.268/2023 10. Therefore, the appeals are devoid of merits and accordingly, they are dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25