ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 12.12.2019 bearing No. Puraike/C.R/33/2019-20 issued by respondent No.4 (Annexure-D) and for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider the application dated 12.09.2019 at Annexure-C on compassionate grounds. 2. The petitioner states that his father late Sri.Manjunath Shettar was the holder of authorization for running fair price shop within Hubballi PDS area under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992. The petitioner’s father died on 22.08.2019. The petitioner states that after the death of his father, he made an application on 12.09.2019 requesting the respondent Authorities to transfer the authorization to run fair price shop to his name. The said request was rejected under Annexure-D endorsement dated 12.12.2019 on the ground that the petitioner is over aged. Challenging the said endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father was holding authorization to run fair price shop since 1994 and on his death, the petitioner made an application for transfer of authorization to petitioner’s name. The Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992 provides for transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds to spouse or son or unmarried daughter of deceased holder of fair price shop authorization. But, it is submitted that the respondents could not have rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner is over aged. In support of his contention, he relies upon the decision of this court in W.P. No.102853/2018 and prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the amended Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 2016 puts restriction for transfer of authorization and submits that to transfer authorization on compassionate grounds also, one should be below 30 years. Hence, he justifies the endorsement issued by the respondents. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father was the holder of authorization to run fair price shop within Hubballi PDS area since 1994 under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992. The petitioner’s father died on 22.08.2019. Hence, he justifies the endorsement issued by the respondents. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father was the holder of authorization to run fair price shop within Hubballi PDS area since 1994 under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992. The petitioner’s father died on 22.08.2019. Subsequent to his death, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 12.09.2019 to transfer the authorization, which was in his father's name, to his name. The respondents under endorsement dated 12.12.2019 Annexure-D rejected the petitioner’s request on the ground that the petitioner is over aged. As per Clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992, one should be less than 30 years for transfer of authorization. This Court, in similar circumstances, in W.P. No.55097 of 2017, disposed of on 11.12.2017 and W.P. No.104301 of 2018, disposed of on 16.11.2018, directed the respondents to consider the application for transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds irrespective of the age restriction under Clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992. It is to be seen that under Clause 13 of the Control Order, while transferring the authorization on compassionate ground on the death of the holder of the authorization to his son or unmarried daughter, applying the age restriction of 30 years would be arbitrary and it would defeat the object of transferring the authorization on compassionate grounds. Thus, following the above said two decisions and for the above reasons, the endorsement dated 12.12.2019 at Annexure-D bearing No.Puraike/C.R/33/2019-20 is quashed. The respondents, particularly, the respondent No.4 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application Annexure-C dated 12.09.2019 afresh and pass appropriate orders not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.