Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 304 (KAR)

H. K. CHANDRASHEKARA v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

2005-05-24

K.L.MANJUNATH

body2005
MANJUNATH, J. ( 1 ) THE short question that arises for the consideration of this Court in this writ petition is whether the Deputy Commissioner is competent to grant authorization on compassionate ground in favour of the sister-in-law (younger brother's wife) of the deceased authorized dealer. ( 2 ) ONE Rajanna was running a fair price depot at Hanaganahalli village of Mandya Taluk. He died on 4. 5. 2004. He was un-married and after his death, R-3 who is the sister-in-law of deceased Rajanna requested the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya to transfer authorization on compassionate basis contending that her husband is dumb and she was entirely depending upon Rajanna for her livelihood. Based on the request of R-3 and on the recommendation of Tahsildar, Mandya, authorization to run the fair price depot at Hanaganahalli was transferred to the name of R-3. This order is called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, authorization can be transferred on compassionate ground only in favour of the spouse of the authorized person or in favour of the eligible children of the deceased licensee. Petitioners counsel by relying upon proviso to Cl. (13) of Karnataka Essential Commodities (PDS) control order, 1992 contends that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner granting authorization in favour of R-3 as bad in law. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for R-3 contends that Deputy Commissioner by using his discretion and or considering the family difficulties of R-3 and considering that deceased Rajanna, was not married and that he was maintaining the Respondent No. 3 and her husband, authorization has been transferred to R-3 as a special case. Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate relying upon proviso to Cl. (13) of Karnataka Essentail Commodities (PDS) Control Order, 1992 supports the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, the only point to be considered by this Court is whether the authorization which was in the name of deceased Rajanna can be transferred to the name of deceased Rajanna can be transferred to the name of R-3 on compassionate grounds. ( 6 ) PROVISO to Cl. ( 6 ) PROVISO to Cl. (13) of the Karnataka Essential commodities (PDS) Control order, 1992 reads as hereunder:"provided that the authorized authority may order for such transfer in the event of the death of the authorized dealer to the spouse or son or unmarried daughter with the prior approval of the Government. "from the above proviso it is clear that on the death of the authorized dealer, dealership may be transferred only to the spouse of the deceased dealer or son or in favour of unmarried daughter. Even if the deceased had no son and had only married daughter, dealership cannot be transferred to the name of the married daughter also. Therefore, it is clear that the authorization can be transferred only either in favour of the spouse or son or unmarried daughter. But R-3 in this case is neither a spouse nor an unmarried daughter but she is the sister-in-law of the deceased dealer. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-F dated 10. 12. 2004 transferring dealership on compassionate grounds in the name of R-3 is held to be bad in law. No doubt, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order granting authorization considering the fact that the husband of the petitioner is a dumb person and that the deceased was elder brother of her husband. But the law does not permit the Deputy Commissioner to grant such authorization in favour of R-3. Therefore, Annexure-F dated 10. 12. 2004 is required to be quashed. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that pursuant to Annexure-F dated 10. 12. 2004 R-3 is distributing essential commodities to the card holders. Since Annexure-F has to be quashed till fresh authorization is granted in favour of eligible candidate by following the procedure in the interest of card holders this Court is, of the opinion that as a special case R-3 has to be permitted to run a fair price shop. ( 8 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-F dated 10. 12. 2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya is hereby quashed. Deputy Commissioner, Mandya is directed to invite the applications from the eligible candidates and consider such applications on merit and in accordance with law. ( 8 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-F dated 10. 12. 2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya is hereby quashed. Deputy Commissioner, Mandya is directed to invite the applications from the eligible candidates and consider such applications on merit and in accordance with law. R-3 is also at liberty to make an application; and if such application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. --- *** --- .