Karnataka High Court
Sri.Channagireshwara Primary ... vs State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2019
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.107168 OF 2019 &
W.P. NOS.107207-107216 OF 2019 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN
1. SRI.CHANNAGIRESHWARA PRIMARY CONSUMER
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI.CHANNAGIRIYAPPA
S/O SHRISHAILAPPA MUGHALKOD,
AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS,
O/AT: MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
2. GARIBI HATAO CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI.MAHADEV S/O KALLAPPA SADABALLAVAR,
AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS,
O/AT: MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
3. SRI.BHAGYALAKSHMI ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI.MANJUNATH S/O MAHESH BHAVIKATTI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
O/AT: MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
4. KARNATAKA PRIMARY CONSUMERS
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI.SAGAR S/O KALLOLEPPA HALASOGAL,
:2:
AGED ABOUT: 27 YEARS,
O/AT: MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
5. SRI.BANASHANKARI GRAMODYOGA KAIGARIKE
ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI.AZIZ S/O INODIN MOSADAGI,
AGED ABOUT: 67 YEARS,
O/AT: MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
6. SRI.VENKATESHWARA DALITHA SEVA SAMITHI
EARLIER KNOWN AS
DALITHA SANGARSHA JIRNODDARA SAMITHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI.BASAVARAJ
S/O YALLAPPA BANDIVADDAR,
AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS,
O/AT: MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
7. SRI.PANDURANGA TARUNA SANGHA
EARLIER KNOWN AS TARUNA SANGHA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI.ASHOK S/O VITTAL PAWAR
AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS,
O/AT: MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
8. SRI.MAHALAKSHMI VIVIDA UDDESHAGALA
SAHAKARI SANGHA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI.SIDDAPPA S/O BASAPPA RAMOJI
AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS,
O/AT: MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
9. PARISHISHTA JATHI PARISHISHTA PANGADA
MAHILEYARA VIVIDA UDDESHAGALA
SAHAKARI SANGHA,
:3:
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SMT.ASHWINI W/O MAHADEV KADABALLAVAR
AGED ABOUT: 24 YEARS,
O/AT: MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
10. SRI.DANAMMA DEVI MAHILA URBAN
CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SMT.ROOPA W/O GIRIMALLAPPA BADAGI,
AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS,
O/AT: MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
11. SRI.BHEEMAPPA BABU GOUNDI
AGED ABOUIT: 44 YEARS,
O/AT: MAHALINGAPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES
AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGLAURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
ZILLA ADALITA BHAVANA,
BAGALKOT-587103. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED PAPER PUBLICATION DATED
:4:
19.02.2019 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN SL.NO.AANASA/
HONYABEAM/VIVA-264/2018-19/731 VIDE ANNEXURE-E;
AND DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 11.03.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-F WITHIN 15 DAYS AND
DROP THE ALLOTMENT PROCESS.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners, who are running the authorized ration shops, have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court calling in question the validity of the impugned notification dated 19.02.2019 issued by the second respondent herein at Annexure-E, whereby applications are called for from the public at large for establishing of a new Fair Price Shop in the area comprised in the jurisdictional limits of these petitioners.
2. Petitioners have also sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to consider their representation dated 11.03.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-F, wherein they have registered their resistance to the proposal of establishing one more :5: shop regard being had to the numerical strength of card-holders.
3. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Advocate, Smt. Veena Hegde, who opposes the writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, admittedly, there are only 8906 card-holders in all attached to the eleven Fair Price Shops of the petitioners herein; the PDS Control Order prescribes minimum of 800 cards per shop in urban area; that being so, even going by rudiments of arithmetics, there is no scope for establishment of one more Fair Price Shop to the prejudice of the petitioners herein; the petitioners have made a representation on 11.03.2019 opposing the proposal, which has remained unconsidered and which would possibly remain unlooked into, unless the intervention of this Court takes place. :6:
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate, Smt. Veena Hegde refuting the contentions of the petitioners makes submission in justification of the impugned paper publication dated 19.02.2019 at Annexure-E stating that there is no law which prohibits establishment of any number of Fair Price Shops, within the discretion of the Officials; but, only assurance is that ordinarily each of the Fair Price Shops shall have not less than 800 card-holders; the Official-respondents, in their wisdom, have decided to go for one more Fair Price Shop and the reasons for such decision are not judicially reviewable since a lot of wisdom operates behind such decisions.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate, Smt. Veena Hegde appearing for the respondents. I have perused the petition papers. :7:
7. Under the provisions of the PDS Control Order, the Notifications and the Circulars issued under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, what is assured to each of the Fair Price Shop is 800 Ration Cards in the urban area, and that there is no prohibition for establishing any number of Fair Price Shop within the Executive wisdom of the State, subject to the rider that the minimum number of the card holding is not reduced thereby. No law is brought to the notice of the Court which curtails this power; the case of the petitioner falls within the principle of Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410) Y.B.11 Hen.IV, 47 PI 21 of the English Court, relating to damum sine injuria. Therefore, no case is made out for invalidation of the impugned notification which proposes to establish one more Fair Price Shop.
8. True it is, that the petitioners have submitted a representation on 11.03.2019 registering their protest to the proposal of establishing one more Fair Price Shop :8: within the area allocated to them; when a representation is made by a citizen, it is the duty of the Welfare State and it's Officers to duly consider the same and further to inform him the result of such consideration. The information furnished by the petitioners in the representation would act as an input for that decision making process or for the review of such decision; this having not been done, petitioners are justified, as rightly submitted by their counsel Mr. Yadwad, in knocking at the doors of this Court.
9. In the above circumstances, although the impugned Notification dated 19.02.2019 issued by the second respondent at Annexure-E cannot be faltered, these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the second respondent to consider petitioners' representation dated 11.03.2019 at Annexure-F forthwith, and till such consideration is made, the impugned Notification dated 19.02.2019 at Annexure-E shall not be given effect to; further the respondents are :9: restrained from reducing the card holding of the each of the petitioners below 800; a direction also issues to consider claim of such of the petitioners, whose card holding is below the minimum, to take steps to maintain the minimum prescribed within a reasonable period.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms