- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:110 WP No. 109710 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.109710 OF 2025 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN: GUGGARA HATTI GRAHAKAR SAHAKARI SANGHA, 5TH WARD FFD 115/9 R/BY ITS SECRETARY SRI PARASURAMA M S/O. M.RAMANNA, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. SECRETARY OF GUGGARA HATTI GRAHAKAR SAHAKARI SANGHA 5TH WARD FFD 115/9 R/O. 4TH WARD, HONNALLI ROAD, NEAR USMANIA MASID GUGGARAHATTI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPT. OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001, BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY. 2. THE FOOD COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI-583101. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2026.01.09 10:54:55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:110 WP No. 109710 of 2025 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, BALLARI-583101. 5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, BALLARI-583101. 6. THE TASILDHAR, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A) WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 07.11.2025 PASSED BY 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO: SUM: AANASA-8/NYA.BE.AAM/HOSA/17/2023-24, VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT ONLY IN RESPECT OF GUGGARAHATTI TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.11.2025 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. C) SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDERS OR DIRECTION MAY DEEM FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, BE ISSUED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:110 WP No. 109710 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “A) Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing the impugned notification dated 07.11.2025 passed by 4th respondent Bearing No: Sum: AaNaSa- 8/Nya.Be.Aam/Hosa/17/2023-24, vide Annexure-B issued by 4th respondent only in respect of Guggarahatti Tq. and Dist. Ballari, in the interest of justice and equity. B) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus to consider the representation dated 16.11.2025 to the respondent No.2 to 4 vide Annexure-C. C) Such other writ or orders or direction may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, be issued in the interest of justice.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner/Society is registered under the Co-Operative Societies Act and is also an authorised holder of the fair price shop situated at Guggarahatti Taluk, Ballari District and it is distributing the food grains to the cardholders without any complaint from any corner. It is stated that, on 07.11.2025, respondent No.4 has issued the impugned notification for establishment of new shop in respect of Guggarahatti area and also invited the applications from the public at large. After the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:110 WP No. 109710 of 2025 issuance of the said notification, the petitioner made a representation to respondents No.2 to 4 requesting for cancellation of the notification because it is running the fair price shop since 1994 and distributing the food grains to all the cardholders and there is no proposal from the public for establishment of new shop and the establishment of new shop is not required. It is also stated that, the Government has issued circular directing the Deputy Directors or Assistant Directors of the entire State to verify the eligible and non-eligible cardholders and submit a report. It is stated that, the respondents have not taken any action till today pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner. Hence, compelled the petitioner to come before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in respect of this village, the Government has issued the notification, whereas in respect of the other villages, where the number of cards are more, they are not issuing any notification or appointing any further fair price shop dealers. There is a clear discrimination on the part of the respondents. It is also submitted that, when the petitioner has given a representation, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:110 WP No. 109710 of 2025 the respondents ought to have considered the same. The notification that is issued by respondent No.4 needs to be set aside. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 and the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. He has drawn the attention to Control Order 11. It is stated that as per Control Order 11, the number of ration cards assigned to a fair price depot under sub- clause (1) shall not be less than 300 for a fair price depot in a rural area and not less than 500 for a fair price depot in an urban area; that the Authorized Authority may, if he considers it necessary in the interest of the ration cardholders, transfer ration cards from one fair price shop to another; provided that no such transfer shall leave any fair price depot with less than the minimum number of ration cards as specified in Controal Order 11(2). It is submitted that, in this particular case, the petitioner is having more than 1800 cards and this is a rural area and that the petitioner has to have only minimum of 300 cards. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:110 WP No. 109710 of 2025 In that case, the discretion rests with the respondents to issue a fresh notification to bifurcate, transfer or appoint new fair price shop dealers. It is submitted that, the petitioner has no legal right that can be enforced before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the counsel on either side, perused the material on record. Control Order 11(1)(2)(3) makes it very clear that, in a rural area, the minimum cards should be 300 and in an urban area, the minimum cards should be 500. If it is the case of the petitioner that, though he is having less than 300 cards still the respondent No.4 has issued a notification for appointment of another fair price shop dealer, then this Court would come to the rescue of the petitioner, but that is not his case. When he is having more than 300 cards and as it is said, it is more than 1800, in that case, the petitioner has no legal right to come before this Court nor can seek an order from this Court restraining the respondents from appointing new fair price shop dealers. The second submission of the petitioner that the respondents are not doing the same in other areas, that this Court cannot consider and the respondents are duty bound by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:110 WP No. 109710 of 2025 the control orders and they have to act in accordance with law. After the new fair price shop dealers are appointed and if the petitioner is having less than 300 cards, then the petitioner is always at liberty to come before this Court. 6. In view of the above discussion, the relief as prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All pending I.As. in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI RH CT: UMD