ORDER : Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 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 writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 13.05.2020 issued by 2nd respondent in No.DRA/CR/05-2017-18 produced at Annexure-B. 2. The petitioner contends that the petitioner’s father was granted authorization by the then Thasildar, Mulbagal Taluk in the year 1986-87 to distribute the essential commodities to the public at large attached to his father’s shop. On coming into force KEC (PDS) Control Order, 1992, authorization came to be issued by 2nd respondent to the petitioner’s father under the said provision in the year 1993-94 which is being renewed from time to time and the same is valid till 31.12.2021. 3. Since the petitioner was unemployed, he was assisting his father in his day-to-day business of his father in respect of aforesaid shop. On account of the unfortunate demise of petitioner’s father on 08.04.2020, the petitioner after obtaining no objection from his mother, two brothers and sister who are the only other legal heirs of petitioner’s father filed an application dated 28.04.2020 with the 2nd respondent seeking for transfer of authorization on compassionate ground to his name. 4. The 2nd respondent however relying on KEC (PDS) Control Order, 2016, (for short, ‘Control Order, 2016’) more particularly as regards the limitation in respect of upper age limit being 30 years rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner’s age was 41 years as on the date of filing of the application. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that such a rejection is improper. The age restrictions has 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 as also W.P.No.51847/2019 dated 10.12.2019. 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 upper age limit under the Control Order, 2016 to reject the application. 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 upper age limit 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. 6. 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 41 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. 7. Heard Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.V. Krishna, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents. 8. 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 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent 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. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner are of considerable merit. 2nd respondent 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. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner are of considerable merit. 2nd respondent 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 2nd 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. 10. 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. 11. As observed above, the said restrictions cannot be applied to such application as laid down by this Court. 12. 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 13.05.2020 passed by 2nd respondent in No.DRA/CR/05-2017-18 produced at Annexure-B is hereby quashed. iii. A mandamus is issued directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner dated 28.04.2020 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 1st respondent 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.