Karnataka High Court
The Secretary, Best Of Seven Card ... vs The Deputy Director For Food And Civil ... on 26 July, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29613
WP No. 5552 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5552 OF 2021 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY,
BEST OF SEVEN CARD HOLDERS SOCIETY,
FAIR PRICE DEPOT NO.BLW-16,
NO.28, II MAIN ROAD,
SHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR FOOD
AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, WEST RANGE,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 018.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD
AND CIVIL SUPPLIES,
MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 052.
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA ...RESPONDENTS
Location: HIGH (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED
09.02.2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN HIS ORDER AT ANNEXURE-K
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2020 PASSED
BY THE R-1 IN HIS ORDER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F IN ITS
ENTIRETY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29613
WP No. 5552 of 2021
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. During the 1992-93 period, it was granted authorization to distribute essential commodities to ration card holders under the Public Distribution System.
2. The second respondent issued an order on April 28, 2015, canceling the authorization granted to the petitioner. The order stated that the petitioner had misused the biometric data of 17 cardholders and misappropriated food grains, resulting in a penalty of Rs.1,94,258.89. This order was subsequently set aside by this Court in W.P.No.10587/2016, directing the second respondent to issue a fresh order in accordance with the law. Following the Court's directive, the second respondent reissued a similar order canceling the petitioner's authorization, after providing an opportunity for a hearing, and reimposed the penalty of Rs.1,94,258.89.
3. The petitioner has deposited the penalty amount of Rs.1,94,258.89 (comprising Rs.1,00,000 and Rs.94,258.89), as evidenced by Annexures G and H1. The petitioner is now before this Court challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent, which canceled the authorization. The petitioner argues that in similar circumstances, authorizations have been restored upon payment of the penalty amount. Specifically, in a similar case, the competent authority, by order dated July 3, 2018 (Annexure J), restored authorization in favor of Sri -3- NC: 2024:KHC:29613 WP No. 5552 of 2021 Chennakeshava, who faced charges of misappropriating food grains of 28 cardholders. Although the charges differ, the petitioner has also deposited the penalty of Rs.1,94,258.89.
4. Clause 12 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2016, provides for the cancellation of authorization if the authorized dealer or agency, or any agent or servant acting on their behalf, contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the authorization or provisions of the Order. Clause 18(A) of the Control Order, 2016, stipulates penalties for any ration card holder who sells or stores essential commodities or food grains for the purpose of selling for money. Such a ration card holder, or any family member thereof, is subject to a penalty equivalent to the market rate price of the food grains and a suspension of the ration card for six months.
5. However, the provisions contained in Clause 18(A) apply exclusively to ration card holders and not to individuals or entities granted authorization to distribute essential commodities under the Public Distribution System. Therefore, while the second respondent has canceled the petitioner's authorization, they should not have imposed the penalty. Given that the petitioner has deposited the penalty amount, it would be appropriate to restore the authorization granted to the petitioner, as was done in similar cases. Accordingly the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed-in-part. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29613 WP No. 5552 of 2021
ii) The impugned order dated 09.02.2021, passed by the second respondent (Annexure K), and the order dated 13.07.2020, passed by the first respondent (Annexure F), are hereby quashed insofar as they relate to the cancellation of authorization. However, the penalty imposed on the petitioner is confirmed.
iii) The respondents are hereby directed to restore the authorization and allot food grains to the petitioner for distribution to its cardholders under the Public Distribution System. This exercise shall be concluded within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK