NAGARAJU D T v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B M SHYAM PRASAD
- Neutral citation
- 2026:KHC:3078
Outcome
Allowed
[a] The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
(BY SRI.KESHAVA CHANDRA S P, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, TUMKUR - 572 101 - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:3078 WP No. 39738/2025 HC-KAR
COMMISSIONER OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, 5TH FLOOR, MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.12.2025 ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-B; TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO R-2 TO TRANSFER OR ISSUE AUTHORISATION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH IN TERMS OF ORDER DATED 13.12.2024 AND 15.10.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.33154/2024 AND W.P. NO.28236/2025 RESPECTIVELY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES - C AND C1. 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 - NC: 2026:KHC:3078 WP No. 39738/2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's Endorsement dated 06.12.2025. The second respondent has rejected the petitioner's application for transfer of authorization to run a Fair Price Depot and the petitioner's request for transfer is on the demise of his father Mr. C. Thimmaiah on
Operative part
21.10.2025. The petitioner's father was issued with authorization to run a Fair Price Depot at Dabbagunte Village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District. The second respondent has rejected the petitioner's application citing the age of petitioner's father. Mr. Keshava Chandra S. P, the learned counsel the petitioner, submits the second respondent could not have rejected the request for transfer of authorization because of his father's age as of the date of his demise emphasizing that this - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3078 WP No. 39738/2025 HC-KAR Court's consistent view has been authorization must be transferred irrespective of the age and educational qualification of the authorization holder. Mr. B. Ravindranath, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of the afore. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions because irrefutably this Court's consistent view has been that the transfer of authorization cannot be rejected on these grounds. Therefore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. [b] The impugned Endorsement dated
06.12.2025 is quashed directing the second respondent to transfer the authorization favour of petitioner. [c] If the petitioner satisfies all other requirements, this transfer shall be - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3078 WP No. 39738/2025 completed within a period of two [2] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE HC-KAR RB
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: [a] The petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.