ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for writ of certiorari to quash the order bearing No. FSD/FPD/CR-03/2017-18 dated 27.04.2017 passed by the third respondent (Annexure-C), if necessary by holding that the Proviso to Clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 in so far as it stipulates the exclusion of a predeceased son of a daughter and imposition of an age limit of 30 years for transfer of authorization is arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. Heard Sri N. Byregowda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. Perused the writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is maternal grand son of one Sri Govindaiah, who was holding authorization under the PDS (Control Order) 1992, to run a fair price shop at Cheelaganahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Vaddagere Post, Korategere Taluk, Tumkur District. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother was the only daughter to Sri. Govindaiah, who passed away on 20.01.2008. The petitioner was living with his grandfather and was looking after his grandfather. Further it is submitted that the petitioner was virtually adopted by Sri Govindaiah. It is submitted that there are no other legal heirs of Sri Govindaiah at the time of his death in the year 2008. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application to the Respondent Authorities to transfer the authorization, which was standing in the name of Sri Govindaiah to the petitioner under Clause 13 of the (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992. He submits that the petitioner is the son of daughter of the authorized dealer and exclusion of daughter’s son under proviso (2) of Clause 13 of (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 is wholly unreasonable and would not stand to reasons. The proviso cannot restrict transfer of authorization only to the spouse or son or unmarried daughter, in case of death of an authorized holder. It is his submission that all legal heirs are to be afforded an opportunity to claim transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. Thus, he prays for allowing of the Writ Petition. 5. Per contra, learned AGA would submit that Clause 13 of (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 would permit transfer of authorization to legal heirs as contained in proviso to Clause 13. Thus, he prays for allowing of the Writ Petition. 5. Per contra, learned AGA would submit that Clause 13 of (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 would permit transfer of authorization to legal heirs as contained in proviso to Clause 13. Further it is submitted that the (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992 is replaced by Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 2016. That the validity of which was challenged before this Court and the same is upheld. Learned Additional Government Advocate drawing attention of this Court to Clause 13 would submit that to transfer authorization to legal heirs of deceased authorized dealer certain restrictions are imposed under proviso to Clause 13. Thus he submits that in view of the proviso to Clause 13 either under the (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992 or Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, the petitioner would not be entitled for transfer of authorization on the death of one Sri Govindaiah. 6. The petitioner is maternal grand son of one Sri Govindaiah, who was holding authorization under the (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992 to run the fair price shop. He died on 20.01.2008. 7. Clause 13 of (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992 reads as follows: “13. Prohibition of Transfer of Authorization: No authorized dealer shall assign or transfer his authorization to any other person by and no person shall carry on business as a transferee or otherwise on behalf of any such authorized dealer: “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.” 8. Clause 13 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016 reads as follows: “13. Clause 13 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016 reads as follows: “13. Prohibition of Transfer of Authorization: No authorized dealer shall assign or transfer his authorization to any other person by and no person shall carry on business as a transferee or otherwise on behalf of any such authorized dealer: “Provided that the authorized authority may order for such transfer in the event of the death of the authorized dealer before 60 years of age, to the spouse or son or unmarried daughter, in case he or she is above 18 years and less than 30 years (or 40 years for unmarried daughters) of age having passed 10th standard and has applied for transfer without 90 days of the death of the authorized dealer, with the prior approval of the Commissioner for a maximum period of 3 years viz. the period of validity of a fresh authorization.” Proviso to Clause 13 of the (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992 provided transfer of authorization on the death of the authorized holder to spouse or son or unmarried daughter, with the prior approval of the Government. There was no age restriction under the (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992 for transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds, but under proviso to Clause 13 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016 authorization could be transferred to spouse or son or unmarried daughter, if the authorized dealer dies before 60 years of age and the transferee i.e., the spouse or son or unmarried daughter should have attained the age of 18 years and should not have crossed 30 years of age and should have passed 10th standard. 9. Under both the (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992 and 2016 there is no provision to transfer authorization to maternal grand son. Restricting transfer only to spouse, son or unmarried daughter, cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. The transfer of authorization on compassionate ground is only for a limited period and one cannot claim as a matter of right. It is a policy decision of the Government. 10. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected.