Basavaraj S/o Mallappa Devaramani v. State of Karnataka
2025-11-18
M.NAGAPRASANNA
body2025
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 11.08.2025, by which the third respondent grants the licence to run the fair price shop in favour of the fifth respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.M.Dharigond appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA Sri.T.Hanumareddy for the respondent-State, the learned counsel Sri.Srinand A. Pachhapure for respondent No.5 and the learned counsel Sri.Sadiq N. Goodwala appearing for respondent No.6. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner is a disabled person, who has disability to the tune of 50 percent, so is the fifth respondent. The two were participants in a process for allotment of a fair price shop when it was notified on 15.09.2023. Out of the candidates that were chosen, the sixth respondent was selected as the candidate eligible under the said notification and the fair price shop was allotted in favour of the sixth respondent. The fifth respondent challenges the said allotment before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority confirms the allotment in favour of the respondent No.6. This is challenged by the respondent No.5 before this Court in Writ Petition No.106605 of 2024, which comes to be disposed by an order dated 12.02.2025, directing the respondent-State to consider the allotment of the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner, if on certain terms and conditions. This is challenged by the sixth respondent before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.100131 of 2025. The Writ Appeal comes to be rejected without interfering with the order passed by this court. The result of the rejection of the Writ Appeal on 04.03.2025 is the allotment of license to run the fair price shop in favour of the respondent No.5 herein. In all these proceedings, the present petitioner was nowhere in the picture. 4. After the rejection of the Writ Appeal, and the allotment of the fair price shop in favour of the respondent No.5, a Review Petition comes to be filed in R.P.No.100027 of 2025, which comes to be rejected, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of such remedy as available in law. The petitioner then files a Writ Appeal and the subject writ petition. In the light of the subject writ petition pending, withdraws the Writ Appeal on the score that the subject petition is filed challenging the subsequent order passed by the Authority.
The petitioner then files a Writ Appeal and the subject writ petition. In the light of the subject writ petition pending, withdraws the Writ Appeal on the score that the subject petition is filed challenging the subsequent order passed by the Authority. Therefore the order dated 11.08.2025, has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.H.M.Darigond appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner's disability certificate itself is doubtful. A complaint is registered. Complaint is pending. Therefore, the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner is in violation of the order of this Court. This Court was clear in saying that if all other conditions are fulfilled, only then the allotment should be made. According to the learned counsel, the other conditions that are not fulfilled, is the disability certificate. Therefore, he would submit that in the light of the jugglery, the notification be reissued and all of them be permitted to participate in a freshly notified allotment process. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 would submit that the complaint is registered on 07.03.2025 and the Review Petition is preferred on 10.03.2025. The rejection of the application of the petitioner happens on 07.08.2023. The said rejection is not challenged. Having accepted the rejection cannot now question the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that the complaint so registered by the petitioner could not have been entertained even in terms of law and therefore submits that there is no warrant of interference at the hands of this Court at this juncture. 7. The learned AGA would submit that a Medical Board was constituted to assess the disability of the petitioner on the complaint so registered. The Medical Board has rendered a certificate reiterating the disability of the fifth respondent at 75 percent, which was rendered 10 years ago. Therefore, the learned AGA submits that there is no warrant of interference with the challenge to the said petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts link in the chain of events and dates are all a matter of record, but would require a slight elaboration.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts link in the chain of events and dates are all a matter of record, but would require a slight elaboration. On 15.09.2023 comes the notification, calling for applications from eligible persons for allotment of a fair price shop. The petitioner, fifth respondent and sixth respondent, all three along with others, apply. The applications are scrutinized. Few are rejected and one is chosen. The chosen one is the sixth respondent. The rejection of others is as follows: 10. The application of the petitioner also comes to be rejected on a twin score; one, that he did not have 50% of disability; and the other, he did not have the necessary balance in his account. The said rejection of the petitioner is not challenged by him, but has tacitly accepted the rejection. The fifth respondent challenges the allotment in Writ Petition No.106605 of 2024. This Court considering the cases of both the petitioner and the fifth respondent, holds as follows: Clause 6 of Condition No.2(a) of the notification specifies that one should produce a residence certificate indicating that he is resident of the same village. Admittedly, the fifth respondent is not the resident of the village indicated in the notification. Therefore, the allotment runs counter to law on the aforesaid score. 8. The other ineligibility that is projected by the fifth respondent against the petitioner is, concerning the application of the petitioner. In the application, the petitioner indicates that his business premises would be his home premises. The fifth respondent is no different, he also states the same thing. Running of a fair price shop in the residential premises is prohibited, but it is not a defect that is not curable. 9. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits and undertakes that he would not run the fair price shop, if allotted, not in his home premises but would take a place on rent and his submission is recorded. 10. In the light of the ineligibility of the fifth respondent and the eligibility of the petitioner, being the resident of the same village, the petition deserves to succeed. 11. In the light of the observations made hereinabove and the undertaking of the petitioner, the following: ORDER: a. The writ petition is allowed.
10. In the light of the ineligibility of the fifth respondent and the eligibility of the petitioner, being the resident of the same village, the petition deserves to succeed. 11. In the light of the observations made hereinabove and the undertaking of the petitioner, the following: ORDER: a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The impugned orders dated 27.10.2023 and 03.09.2024, passed by the third respondent and the second respondent, respectively, stand quashed. c. The official respondents are directed to allot the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner, if he fulfills all other conditions, except the two, considered in the course of the order. d. The said process of allotment in favour of the petitioner shall be done within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. e. Till such time, the allotment of the fifth respondent shall not be disturbed. 11. The sixth respondent, who suffered an order at the hands of this Court, challenges the same before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.100131 of 2025. The Division Bench by an order dated 04.03.2025 rejects the Writ Appeal. The rejection of the Writ Appeal happens on 04.03.2025. Till the rejection of the Writ Appeal, the petitioner was in deep slumber, wakes up and initiates two proceedings; one registers a complaint before the Authorities on 07.03.2025; the other, prefers a Review Petition seeking review of the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by this Court by filing a Review Petition on 10.03.2025. The Review Petition in R.P.No.100027/2025 comes to be rejected on11.07.2025 by the following order: “Heard Sri H M Dharigond, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Smt Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Srinand A Pacchapure and Smt Pallavi S Pachhapure, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 2. This Court disposed Writ Petition No.106605 of2024 by the following order dated 12-02-2025: “ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The impugned orders dated 27.10.2023 and03.09.2024, passed by the third respondent and the second respondent, respectively, stand quashed. c. The official respondents are directed to allot the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner, if he fulfills all other conditions, except the two, considered in the course of the order.
b. The impugned orders dated 27.10.2023 and03.09.2024, passed by the third respondent and the second respondent, respectively, stand quashed. c. The official respondents are directed to allot the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner, if he fulfills all other conditions, except the two, considered in the course of the order. d. The said process of allotment in favour of the petitioner shall be done within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. e. Till such time, the allotment of the fifth respondent shall not be disturbed.” Challenging the said order, it transpires that the 5 th respondent, files a writ appeal in Writ Appeal No. 100131 of 2025, which comes to be dismissed on 04-03-2025. After the dismissal, the present review petitioner, who was not a party to the proceedings in the writ petition, as also the writ appeal, is said to have preferred a writ petition in Writ Petition No.101896 of 2025 challenging the allotment made in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court. In the interregnum, also prefers a review petition seeking review of the order in Writ Petition No.106605 of 2024, on the score that it affects the right of the petitioner. 3. The finding rendered by this Court nowhere affects the right of any third party. Be that as it may. The subject petition, if on the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner would be entertained, it would amount to re-hearing the entire matter all over again, after it being affirmed by the Division Bench. The added circumstance that would not merit entertainment of the petition, apart from what is observed hereinabove is that, the petitioner himself has preferred another writ petition in WP No.101896 of 2025 projecting all the submissions that he is now wanting to be made in the subject review petition. This cannot be permitted by any canon of law. There is no error apparent, on the face of the record, for this Court to entertain the review, recall the order passed on 12-02-2025 in W.P.No.106605 of 2024. Review Petition, lacking in merit, stands rejected.” 12. The Review Petition inter alia is rejected on the score that there was no error apparent to recall the order. The petitioner then prefers a Writ Appeal against the said order.
Review Petition, lacking in merit, stands rejected.” 12. The Review Petition inter alia is rejected on the score that there was no error apparent to recall the order. The petitioner then prefers a Writ Appeal against the said order. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, it transpires that an order is passed by the respondent on 11.08.2025 allotting the fair price shop in favour of the respondent No.5. It is then the petitioner files the subject petition challenging the said order and at the same time withdraws the Writ Appeal that was filed in the teeth of the subsisting challenge in the subject petition. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry against the disability certificate is pending consideration, therefore the conditions are not fulfilled, is unacceptable. 13. The enquiry that is now said to be pending is a circumstance created by the petitioner himself. As the petitioner registers a complaint on 07.03.2025 alleging that the disability certificate of the fifth respondent is fake, and the disability certificate has stood the test of time since 2015 and the disability has not changed at the tune of 75% then and now, the petitioner having generated the complaint and several other proceedings has blissfully forgotten that he has not raised a challenge to his rejection which happened 3 years ago. Therefore the action of the petitioner in initiating all these proceedings cannot but be observed to be in absence of bonafides. 14. In that light, there cannot be a circumstance, where the notification should be reissued and all of them should be permitted to participate. The order of this Court was unequivocal. The order of this Court has been affirmed by the Division Bench and the affirmation of the Division Bench has become final. In the light of the order becoming final as also the fact that the petitioner not raising a finger at his rejection for 2 long years, cannot now be seen to raise a challenge to the allotment made in favour of the respondent No.5 strictly in consonance with the order passed by this Court. 15. The petition lacking in merit stands rejected. 16. In the light of the reason so rendered in the companion petition, the subject petition in W.P.No.101896/2025 also stands dismissed.