Karnataka High Court
Mallappa S/O Basappa Mundaganur vs The Commissiner on 25 November, 2011
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
froma,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25! DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2611 ho
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE oman |
W.P.NO.17494/2007 {GM-PDS) >
BETWEEN: a
MALLAPPA S/O BASAPPA MUND AGANUR;.
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, SECRETARY, :
JAMKHANDI TALUK KHA DI GRAMODYOGA SANGH,;
BANAHATTI, TQ. JAMKHAN DI, DIST: BA GAL KOT.
os s..PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R.A. SHIRAGUPPI & SRI. SAY ED 8. KAZE , ADVS.)
AND
L. THE COMMISSIONER:
FOOD AND Ci VIL SUPPLIES.
CUNNINGHAM: ROAD, BANGALORE.
THE DEPUTY COMI AISSIONER, BAGALKOT,
TQ. JAMKHAN IDi, bis: BAGALKOT.
bo
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
8s, TQ JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
405. "NIRMAL MAHILA Se re SEIAGALA
'.- SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA, BANAHATT
- R/BY ¥fS SECRETARY
"SHRI PARAPPA S/O GANGAPPA MALAPUR,
AGE~ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BANAHATTI,
TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
| ..RESPONDENTS
~ (BY SRILLMAHESH WODEYAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, .R4 SERVED) a~ aN THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE 28D AND THIRD RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO*.CA URRY. ON THE BUSINESS IN PURSUANCE TO THE: 'LICENSE , ISSUED AS PER ANNEX.B AND D, AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON- FOR: PRELIMINARY: . | HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE. COURT MADE THE :
FOLLOWING:-
ORDE RO The impugned order passed by respondent = is called in question in this: petition. 'The respondent No.1 on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot has not considered all the applica tion filed by the applicants for avant * of authorization to distribute the food grains under, the Fsential Commodities Act, has remanded 'the | mavter for fresh consideration in accordance e with | law. This order is called in question in o this petition. * "2. ..Having heard the counsel for the parties, cs this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the ~ oraer for following reasons:
Jn. a en ee: ©. Cosrvel oN am According to the principles-oftaw, against the order of respondent No.1, the revision is maintainable. Without exhausting the remedy, petition is filed: This,"
Court has noticed that, respondent No.1 has remanded | - the matter to the Deputy Commissione, on | the ground . that, he has failed to consides all the applications in accordance with law. AS there is illegality committed by the Deputy Commissioner, the remand order is passed to reconsider the entire matter afresh in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court does not see any error in the order passed: hy respondent No.1.
3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. If the petitioner is authorized to distribute the food grains and is perinitted to do so, till the dismissal of the application by the. Deputy Commissioner in accordance with law.
MBS /-