Smt. S. Nirmala vs The Department for Food and Civil Supplies, The Deputy Commissioner Department of Food and Civil Supplies, The Tahsildar and Smt. Chinnamma

A.S. Bopanna, J.—Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No. 1 to 3. He is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks. Considering the nature of disposal, notice to respondent No. 4 is not necessary. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 30.08.2013. By the said endorsement, the request made by the petitioner for transfer of the authorization in favour of the petitioner on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has only completed her 7th standard. In effect, the Deputy Commissioner has stated that the petitioner has not completed her SSLC for the purpose of transfer of authorization.

The husband of the petitioner had been earlier granted authorization for distribution of ration to the card holders. The husband of the petitioner has died on 07.07.2011. The petitioner therefore made an application seeking transfer of license on 11.08.2011. At the first instance, the Tahasildar had not accepted the request made by the petitioner by issuing an endorsement dated 13.09.2011. The petitioner accordingly approached the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has presently issued the endorsement dated 30.08.2013. On the issue relating to educational qualification insofar as the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds, the issue is no more res integra inasmuch as this Court in W.P. No. 8586/2006 disposed of on 21.11.2008 has held that the guidelines would not apply to the case of transfer authorization on compassionate grounds. In the circumstance, the endorsement as issued by the Deputy Commissioner dated 30.08.2013 would not be sustainable and the same is accordingly quashed. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner would have to now consider the case of the petitioner for transfer of authorization on compassionate ground as sought by the petitioner. In that regard, the representation as made by the petitioner requires consideration. It is seen that after the death of husband of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner has made alternate arrangement by assigning the cards which had been earlier assigned to husband of the petitioner to respondent No. 4. It is only a temporary alternate arrangement. On the other hand, if any right has been created in favour of respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner may hear the respondent No. 4 also before passing orders on the representation made by the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No. 2.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.