Writ Petition No. 27763 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11710 WP No. 27763 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 27763 OF 2023 (GM-PDS) …PETITIONER BETWEEN: SRI SHIVAMURTHY C., S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHAMUNDESHWARI ROAD, GADIKOPPA, GOPAL EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 205. (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, 3RD CROSS ROAD, GOPALGOWDA EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN – 577 205. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11710 WP No. 27763 of 2023 3. KASABA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED SAVARKAR NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA TOWN AND TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MANJUNATH REDDY. AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.06.2024. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R3) DTD THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NO. NOTIFICATION FSD/FPS/CR.52/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP ISSUED BY THE R-2; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO WITHDRAW ANY NUMBER OF CARDS ALREADY ALLOTTED TO THE FAIR PRICE DEPOT OF THE PETITIONER SO LONG AS HE CONTINUES TO FOLLOW THE LICENSE CONDITIONS. 15/07/2023 BEARING THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notification dated 15-07-2023 issued by the 2nd respondent to regulate the distribution of cards to a particular fair price shop, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11710 WP No. 27763 of 2023 in terms of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Order’ for short). 2. Heard Sri Basavaraj T., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 3. Facts, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner on 22-02-2019 was issued an authorization/licence by the 2nd respondent, to run a fair price shop. The license, on renewal, as it was initially issued on 17-6-2017, was to be in operation upto 16-6-2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the licence has been renewed from time to time. At the time of grant of license, the ration cards that were allotted to the petitioner were 1471 and it is the claim of the petitioner that is wrongly shown as 1737. 4. When things stood thus, on 15-07-2023, the impugned notification comes to be issued, where another fair price shop was granted an authorization in the same area and the cards that were in excess possession of the petitioner are taken away - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11710 WP No. 27763 of 2023 and are placed at the hands of the new allottee, the 3rd respondent herein. It is this notification that comes to be challenged by the petitioner in the subject petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was entitled to have 1471 cards and before taking away the said cards, the procedure as stipulated under the Order is not followed. It is his submission that Section 11(3) of the said Order would clearly indicate that the cards should be varied only if there are recommendations to vary or there is a request from the ration card holders or reorganization of the jurisdictional area. None of these things have happened and the cards that were initially granted to the petitioner i.e., 1471 cards should not have been taken away is his submission. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the State wants to regulate the distribution of cards in terms of the Order. Therefore, the said fair price shop was granted license/authorization and the cards that were in petitioner’s kitty are taken away and handed over to the 3rd respondent. He would submit that there can be no fault found with the notification. He would submit that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11710 WP No. 27763 of 2023 petitioner is wanting to set up a monopoly by keeping all the cards to himself. 7. Learned counsel Sri H C Shivaramu, representing the 3rd respondent who has now been allotted the fair price shop authorization submits that the Control Orders, clearly stipulate number of cards that are to be in one’s fair price shop, he cannot have it in excess, as it becomes contrary to the Statute. Procedure has been followed in the case at hand and as the need for the next fair price shop came about in terms of plethora of orders passed by this Court. Both of them would seek dismissal of the petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner being an allottee of a fair price shop by way of authorization or license is a matter of record. The grant of authorization to the fair price shop and the ration cards to the particular shop is regulated by the Control Order. Clause 11 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11710 WP No. 27763 of 2023 System) Control Order, 2016, becomes germane to be noticed in the case at hand. It reads as follows: “11. Assignment of Ration Card: (1) After sanctioning an authorization to run a fair price depot, the Authorized Authority shall assign to the fair price depot a certain number of ration cards belonging to persons residing near the fair price depot. 2) The number of ration cards assigned to a fair price depot under sub-clause (1) shall not be less than 500 for a fair price depot in a rural area and not less than 800 for a fair price depot in an urban area: Provided that the Authorized Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the limit upto 100 cards for a fair price depot in a rural area if the fair price depot is to serve the needs of an isolated settlement or layout where the number of ration cards is below the limit prescribed viz., special areas like tribal hadis/tandas/gollarahatti etc. (3) The Authorized Authority may, if he considers it necessary, transfer ration cards from one fair price shop to another:- (a) on the request of ration cardholders. (b) as a result of reorganization of the the shop with jurisdictional area of permission of commissioner as a part of well defined parameters. (c) if the number of ration cards in a shop, fall below 75% of the number specified under Clause 11(2), thereby making the shop as economically unviable.” (Emphasis supplied) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11710 WP No. 27763 of 2023 Clause 11 deals with assignment of ration cards. In an urban area, the ration cards should not be less than 800 and in a rural area 500, to a particular fair price shop license. Power to relax is upto 100 cares to a license concerning a rural area and nothing in an urban area. The rationale behind the assignment of the cards under the provisions of the Control Order is public interest, as there would be equal distribution of cards to the fair price shops and it would ward off monopoly and do away arbitrariness. The cards allotted in the case at hand to the petitioner is 1471 while granting authorisation. When the Control Order had restricted the cards to 800, it is un- understandable as to how those many cards were attached to the license of the petitioner. While in some instances, cards would be given beyond the stipulation, in the wake of immediate need that cannot be continued for all time to come. The cards being granted beyond 800 would touch upon the arbitrary exercise of power and therefore, there are plethora of petitions filed before this Court alleging cards being allotted in total variance to the statute, which has resulted in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to join the run, the race of cards along with the petitioners or the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11710 WP No. 27763 of 2023 respondents, all for the reason that the State has failed to act in accordance with the statute. Therefore, it is for the State to henceforth act according to the statute and fix the number of cards in urban areas at 800 and rural areas at 500, and if it has to vary, it should be reasons recorded in writing. Granting of the cards according to the whim and fancy of the Authority should stop, and stop forthwith. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2024 also stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP/nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59