- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1429 WP No.226352 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.226352 OF 2020 (GM-EC) BETWEEN: SRI. SURYAKANTHA SINGODI S/O NAGANNA SIGODI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: DEALER OF FAIR PRICE SHOP, ALLURE (B), CHITTAPUR TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT – 585 222. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.V. NADAGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY CUM REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI DISTRICT, KALABURAGI – 585 102. Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1429 WP No.226352 of 2020 4. THE TAHASILDAR, CHITTAPUR TALUKA, KALABURAGI DISTRICT – 585 211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AT ANNEXURE-L, VIZ, THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2015 BEARING NO.AAHAARA:SGS:46:2015-16 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 CANCELLING THE LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER, ANNEXURE-M, VIZ, THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DISMISSING APPEAL NO.CFS:MELMANAVI:167:2015-16 AND ANNEXURE-O, VIZ, ORDER DATED 04-01-2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DISMISSING REVISION PETITION NO.AANAASA 07 ECA 2019 (29970) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 10.12.2015 at Annexure-L passed by respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner. In terms of the said order, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1429 WP No.226352 of 2020 Deputy Commissioner has cancelled the licence issued to the petitioner to run a fair price shop. The said order is passed invoking Clause 12 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992. 3. The petitioner is also assailing the order dated 29.11.2018 at Annexure-M passed by respondent No.2- Appellate Authority. In terms of the said order, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, canceling the licence. 4. Further, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 04.01.2020 at Annexure-O passed by respondent No.1. In terms of the said order, the Principal Secretary, who is the competent authority to entertain and decide the revision petition has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner assailing the order of the Appellate Authority, by confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Appellate Authority. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1429 WP No.226352 of 2020 5. Thus, this petition is filed challenging the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the validity of the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Principal Secretary. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was running a fair price shop in terms of the licence granted to the petitioner under the relevant provisions of law. 7. Acting on the complaint against the petitioner, the enquiry was initiated under Clause 12 of the aforementioned Order, 1992. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner pointed out the alleged illegalities said to have been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on various occasions. 8. Later, in terms of the impugned order dated 10.12.2015, the Deputy Commissioner took a view that the charges against the petitioner are established and the petitioner did not produce any records to substantiate his - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1429 WP No.226352 of 2020 claim that he was selling the grocery as per the price fixed by the Government. Even the Appellate Authority has rejected the petitioner’s contention, so also the authority exercising the jurisdiction under revision. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the entire proceeding is vitiated on the premise that the order suspending the licence is not passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the order is passed by somebody on his behalf. 10. Referring to the definition of ‘competent authority’ under Clause 1 of Order, 1992, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that only the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority and there is no scope to delegate the power. As such, the order suspending the licence is illegal. Based on that, he would elaborate that rest of the proceedings have to be treated as illegal and vitiated. 11. It is indeed true that, under Clause 1, the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to take - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1429 WP No.226352 of 2020 action under the provisions of Order, 1992. It is further relevant to note that before this Court, the order suspending the licence is not called in question. What is called in question before this Court is the order cancelling the licence i.e., the final order which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. Thus, the contention that the order of suspension of licence was signed by some other officer other than the Deputy Commissioner does not come to the aid of the petitioner to contend that the said proceedings initiated under Clause 12 of the Order, 1992 is illegal. 12. This Court has perused the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has noted that the petitioner has not produced any records to show that he has maintained the correct account of the transaction that has taken place in the fair price shop for which, there was a licence in favour of the petitioner. It is also noticed that the Deputy Commissioner has given a finding based on the statement - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1429 WP No.226352 of 2020 made by the petitioner himself, where the petitioner has taken a stand that he has charged slightly above the prescribed price for want of change. The Deputy Commissioner also noticed that under the licence granted, the petitioner is required to maintain the correct account relating to the transaction and has to furnish the same to the officers, but he has failed to produce the same to substantiate his defence before the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the said order. The Appellate Authority has also concurred with the finding of the Deputy Commissioner. 13. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry is not fair and proper and the petitioner was not given opportunity to lead evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that Clause 12 referred to above does not contemplate such procedure as mandatory procedure. May be in few cases, such - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1429 WP No.226352 of 2020 procedure has to be followed. However, it cannot be said that such procedure is mandatory. 14. From the records, it is not found that any attempt is made by the petitioner to file an application seeking permission to cross-examine the witnesses or lead the evidence on his behalf. Even before this Court, no document is produced to show that the petitioner has maintained the correct account pertaining to the transaction. 15. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority in exercise of the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE LG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11