Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1466 (KAR)

Rathnamma v. State of Karnataka

2020-07-22

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
ORDER : Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties. 1. The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 23.06.2014 issued by respondent No.2 in No.FPS/Compassionate/12/2014-15 produced at Annexure-B. 2. The petitioner contends that the petitioner’s husband was granted with a licence under the provisions of KECL Order, 1986 in the year 1985-86 to run the Fair Price Depot at Devalapura village, Mysore Taluk. Accordingly, the petitioner’s husband was distributing the food grains and the kerosene oil to the card holders attached to his shop during his life time. The petitioner’s husband unfortunately expired on 31.12.2008 leaving behind the petitioner as a sole heir. The petitioner not being well versed to the legal aspects and being unemployed, she could not file necessary application seeking for transfer of authorization on compassionate ground. However, later on when she came to know about the same filed an application for transfer of authorization on compassionate ground to the respondent No.2. 3. Respondent No.2 however rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has not passed SSLC and the application was not filed within the stipulated period. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that such a rejection is improper. The age restrictions and educational qualification have no relevance to the matter and further more, the rejection by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the orders passed by this Court in several writ petitions more particularly in W.P.No.17131/2018 dated 08.02.2019. He contends that when such orders have been passed by this Court, it is not open for the 2nd respondent to once again place reliance on so called education qualification, age limit and limitation with regard to filing of application under the Control Order, 2016 to reject the application. He further goes on to submit that infact such a refusal would amount to contempt of this Court since the 2nd respondent could not have relied on the Control Order, 2016 in the teeth of orders passed by this Court as aforesaid. 5. He further goes on to submit that infact such a refusal would amount to contempt of this Court since the 2nd respondent could not have relied on the Control Order, 2016 in the teeth of orders passed by this Court as aforesaid. 5. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for respondents would submit that the orders of this Court in the earlier matter are limited to the petitioners’ therein and they are not omnibus orders which could be made use of by the petitioner. In the above background, 2nd respondent had no option but to follow the Control Order, 2016 and implement the requirement thereof, since the petitioner admittedly is 60 years of age which is more than the age limit prescribed under the Control Order, 2016, the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for transfer of authorization on compassionate ground. 6. Heard Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.V. Krishna, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents. 7. The facts being not in dispute as stated above are not required to be dealt with in detail. This Court vide its order dated 08.02.2019 in W.P.No.17131/2018 by referring to the earlier orders in W.P.No.22448/2015 and W.P.No.6993/2017 has categorically held that the requirement with regard to having passed SSLC and restriction of age is not applicable when the transfer of authorization is sought on compassionate ground. The said finding has attained finality and the same has not been challenged by the respondent-State. In view thereof, the said finding was applicable to the respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 who is aware of the said orders of this Court ought to have followed the same and could not have relied on the Control Order, 2016. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner are of considerable merit. Respondent No.2 ought not to have relied on the Control Order, 2016 when this Court has categorically held that the restrictions of education and/or age would not be applicable for transfer sought on compassionate grounds. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner are of considerable merit. Respondent No.2 ought not to have relied on the Control Order, 2016 when this Court has categorically held that the restrictions of education and/or age would not be applicable for transfer sought on compassionate grounds. By implication the said restrictions in terms of Rule 13 of Control Order, 2016 has been read down by this Court subsequent to which the nd respondent is required to apply the ruling of this Court on any application received for transfer of authorization on compassionate ground in terms of orders of this court and not rely upon the restrictions in terms of Order 13 of Control Order, 2016. 9. Though this Court from the year 2015 has been applying the above principles, it is seen that several rejection of transfer applications by relying on Order 13 of Control Order, 2016 even in respect of application for transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds are being passed resulting in harassment to the applicants seeking such transfer and unnecessary litigations. 10. As observed above, the said restrictions cannot be applied to such application as laid down by this Court. 11. In view of the above reasoning and finding, I am of the opinion that the writ petition needs to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 23.06.2014 passed by respondent No.2 in FPS/Compassionate/12/ 2014-15 produced at Annexure-B is hereby quashed. iii. A mandamus is issued directing the respondent No.2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner dated 09.01.2014 dehors the requirement of restrictions of education or age in terms of Order 13 of Control Order, 2016, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. iv. Learned AGA is directed to communicate this order to the respondent No.1 who shall in turn communicate the same to all the Deputy Directors of Food and Civil Supplies and such other officers who deal with the applications for transfer of authorization on compassionate ground.