- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3355 WP No.592/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.592/2026 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: SRI MOHAMMED YASEER K S C/O. LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT K.G STORES, BLW-111, NO.22/3, 3RD A MAIN ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MARIYAPPANA PALYA, BANGALORE - 560 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJA N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT IKASA SOUDHA. BANGALORE - 560 001 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3355 WP No.592/2026 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, BHASHYAM CIRCLE, BANGALORE WEST RANGE RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 28.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN HIS NO. U NI (PA) DRA/BPO18/2010-11 PRODUCED ANNEXURE-E. II. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER ON 18.08.2025 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE D. 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: 2026:KHC:3355 WP No.592/2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts that his father Mr. Mohammed Ghouse held authorization for Fair Price Depot at K. J. Stores, BLW-III and that with his father's demise on 13.08.2025, he has filed an application for transfer of authorization which the second respondent has rejected by the impugned Endorsement dated 28.11.2025 [Annexure - E]. The second respondent has issued this Endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application for transfer of authorization stating that the petitioner's request cannot be considered because his father, as of the date of his demise, was aged 76 years. The second respondent has referred to the relevant Control Order opining that if the deceased authorization holder was more than 65 years, the transfer is prohibited. If Mr. Nagaraja N. Naidu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues in support of the petitioner's grievance with the impugned Endorsement dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3355 WP No.592/2026 28.11.2025 relying upon this Court's consistent view that authorisation cannot be rejected on such ground, Ms. Saritha Kulkarni, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, submits that this Court must also consider that though the petitioner has produced his Aadhar Card, he has not produced any other document to show that he is related to the deceased authorization holder and that there is consensus amongst all the legal heirs of the deceased for transfer of authorization in his favour. The petitioner must succeed insofar as the rejection of the application on the ground that the deceased authorization holder was more than 65 years but then, the direction to the second respondent to consider the application for transfer must be on the condition that the petitioner places all documents to demonstrate his relationship with the deceased authorisation holder and that all the legal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3355 WP No.592/2026 heirs have consented for such transfer. Hence the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed-in-part quashing the impugned Endorsement dated 28.11.2025 [Annexure - E] and calling upon the second respondent, subject to the petitioner placing on record materials to establish his relationship with the deceased authorisation holder and consent of all the legal heirs to permit transfer of the authorization in favour of the petitioner. [b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with all the necessary documents with the second respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3355 WP No.592/2026 certified copy of this order and second respondent shall communicate the decision over the next four [4] weeks. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB