Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 423 (KAR)

SAVITHA v. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF FOOD

2002-07-08

H.L.DATTU

body2002
H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) THE Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District, Davanagere, had issued a notification dated 16-2-1999 inviting applications from the persons interested for grant of authorisation for distribution of the essential commodities under the provisions of the PDS Control Order in kadaranayakanahalli, Davanagere District. Petitioner was one of the applicants. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 30-4-1999, has granted authorisation in favour of the petitioner for distribution of the essential commodities under the PDS Control Order. He has allotted nearly 269 cards to the petitioner. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order made by the Deputy Commissioner, 4th respondent-Society has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. In the appeal the primary contention of the petitioner was that the society cannot be an aggrieved person and therefore the Appellate authority cannot entertain the appeal and decide the same one way or the other. The Commissioner who is the Appellate Authority by his order dated 26-7-1999, has allowed the appeal and has set aside the order made by the Deputy Commissioner in granting authorisation in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this court. ( 3 ) APART from others, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Commissioner is not justified in coming to the conclusion that the 4th respondent-Society is an aggrieved person, aggrieved by the orders made by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 30-4-1999 and therefore, the appeal filed by it is not maintainable before him Learned Counsel submits that the reasoning of the Appellate Authority is not only erroneous but also opposed to the provisions of Clause 17 of the PDS Control order. ( 4 ) IN order to test the correctness or otherwise of the legal submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a look at the provisions of Clause 17 of the Act is necessary. Therefore, it is extracted and it reads as under. "17. Appeal. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the author- ised authority refusing to issue or renew an authorisation or cancelling or suspending an authorisation or forfeiting the security deposited by the authorised dealer under the provisions of this order may appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the date of receipt by him of such order". Appeal. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the author- ised authority refusing to issue or renew an authorisation or cancelling or suspending an authorisation or forfeiting the security deposited by the authorised dealer under the provisions of this order may appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of the date of receipt by him of such order". ( 5 ) THE appeal could be filed by an aggrieved person if he is aggrieved by an order of the authorised authority refusing to issue or renew an authorisation or cancel or suspend an authorisation or forfeiting the security deposited by the authorised dealer under the provisions of the order. The appeal requires to be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Clause 17 are not necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. ' ( 6 ) CLAUSE 20 of the Act authorises the State Government to call for and examine the records of any enquiry or proceedings of any officer exercising or failing to exercise the powers under PDS Control Order. It can be done by the State Government on its own or on an application made by the aggrieved person. ( 7 ) KEEPING in view the provisions of Clauses 17 and 20 of the PDS control Order, let me notice the fact situation. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 30-4-1999 had granted an authorisation in favour of the petitioner for distribution of the essential commodities in Kadaranayakanahalli Village. This has been done by him after taking out nearly 269 cards from the 4th respondent-Society. The 4th respondent is an aggrieved person; but the question is, can it file an appeal and whether that appeal filed by it is maintainable before the Commissioner, is the question that requires to be considered by this Court. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED person under the provisions of the PDS Control Order is, any person aggrieved by an order of the authorised authority refusing to issue or renew an authorisation or cancelling or suspending the authorisation or forfeiting the security deposited by the authorised dealer. It is only under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the aggrieved person is maintainable before the Appellate Authority. It is only under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the aggrieved person is maintainable before the Appellate Authority. In the instant case, the 4th respondent-Society was not an applicant before the Deputy commissioner for grant of an authorisation pursuant to his notification dated 16-2-1999. Therefore, the question of refusing to issue or renew an authorisation or cancelling or suspending an authorisation is not there at all. Therefore, the 4th respondent-Society cannot call itself an aggrieved person and file an appeal. Though this aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the Commissioner/appellate Authority, the Appellate authority still feels that the 4th respondent-Society is an aggrieved person and the appeal is maintainable before him. In my opinion, this thinking of the Commissioner/appellate Authority is contrary to the plain language employed by the legislature under Clause 17 of the PDS Control Order. If for any reason, the 4th respondent-Society was aggrieved by the orders made by the Deputy Commissioner in granting authorisation to the petitioner dated 30-4-1999, it could have filed an application before the State Government for appropriate revision. That is not done by the 4th respondent. Since the Commis- sioner/appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the 4th respondent is maintainable before him and since the same is contrary to the provisions of the PDS Control Order, the same requires to be set aside by this Court. ( 9 ) IN the result, writ petition is allowed. The order made by the Appellate Authority dated 26-7-1999 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the 4th respondent to question, if it so desires, the order made by the deputy Commissioner dated 30-4-1999 before the State Government by filing an appropriate application. If such an application is filed by the 4th respondent, the State Government shall decide the same in accordance with law after notice to all the parties. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .