Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shareyank Gowda J S vs State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2025
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25321
WP No. 18645 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 18645 OF 2024 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHAREYANK GOWDA J S
S/O J P SIDDEGOWDA @ J P SURENDRA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/OF: CHIKKOLALE
KABBINAHALLI POST,
CHICKMAGALUR-577 101
KARNATAKA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally
signed by REP BY: PRL SECRETARY,
PRAKASH N DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND
Location:
HIGH CONSUMER AFFAIRS
COURT OF VIKASASOUDHA,
KARNATAKA
AMBEKDAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25321
WP No. 18645 of 2024
HC-KAR
CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
5. THE TAHSILDHAR
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) DIRECTION
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 09/05/2024 ISSUED BY
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, I.E. R4 HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-A
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 S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is the son of the holder of authorisation of a Fair Price Depot. The challenge has been made to the endorsement at Annexure-A. -3- NC: 2025:KHC:25321 WP No. 18645 of 2024 HC-KAR
2. The petitioner, upon the death of his father, has sought for transfer of authorisation into his name. The said application has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's father was aged 72 years. The endorsement states that the authorized holder ought to be within 65 years under Clause 13 of the Food Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021 for the purpose of considering the application.
3. It is to be noticed that the petitioner's father was issued with an authorisation under the Food Control Order of 1992 originally.
4. Perused the order passed by this court in W.P.No.1401/2025 dated 27.06.2025. The observations made in Paragraphs 4 to 6 reads as follows:
"4. Perused the order passed in W.P.No.765/2024 and connected matters dated 31.08.2024 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted here below:-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:25321 WP No. 18645 of 2024 HC-KAR "4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents, along with the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) representing the State, argued that the amended Clause 13 of the Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021 explicitly prohibits the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds if the authorized dealer dies after reaching the age of 65 years or if the transferee does not possess the prescribed qualifications. They relied on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 13559/2020 and connected petitions, which were disposed of on 23.12.2021, to support their position.
8. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 13559/2022, upheld the validity of the amended proviso to Clause 13, but it was dealing with a challenge related to the renewal of authorization on compassionate grounds. In W.P. No. 55097/2017, disposed of on 11.12.2017, this Court held that the condition regarding the age limit imposed in the amended Clause 13 was not sustainable. The decision in W.P. No. 204335/2014, which was followed in W.P. No. 43249/2017, ruled similarly. Furthermore, in W.P. No. 103408/2023, disposed of on 12.06.2023, this Court reiterated that the restrictions introduced in the Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021 were prospective in nature and could not be applied retrospectively to authorizations granted under the unamended Control Order of 1992.
Therefore, these restrictions are only applicable to applicants seeking fresh authorizations and not to existing authorized dealers or their legal heirs." -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:25321 WP No. 18645 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. The Coordinate Bench of this court while dealing with the aspect of transfer of endorsement in W.P.No.17131/2018 dated 08.02.2019 has held as under:
"8.Admittedly, the application for transfer of endorsement in favour of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria with regard to the age. Paragraph-5 of the order dated 20.02.2017 in W.P.No.6993/2017 reads as under:
"5. Both on the aspect relating to the applicant not requiring to pass the SSLC and the restriction of age not being applicable when the transfer of authorization is sought on compassionate ground has arisen before this Court in several writ petitions including W.P.No.22448/2015 dated 21.09.2016 and W.P.No.204335/2014 dated 17.11.2014 and it has been held that such condition cannot be imposed for transfer on compassionate ground."
6. In light of the above, it is clear that the Coordinate Bench has held that conditions in the amended Clause 13 of the Food Control Order of 2016 onwards being prospective cannot relate in imposing disqualification for transfer of authorisation as authorisation was granted under the Food Control Order of 1992.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:25321 WP No. 18645 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. In light of the same, it is clear that the amendment for imposing conditions under Clause 13 of the Control Orders of 2016, 2017 and 2021 cannot be retrospectively made applicable to authorisation issued under the provisions of the earlier Food Control Order.
6. Accordingly, the endorsement at Annexure-A is set aside. Respondent nos.3 and 4 to pass orders and grant authorisation if other guidelines are met, within a period of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP