AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sri Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, the learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
The petitioners have called into question the order, dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent No.4 and the endorsements, dated 12.01.2017 (Annexures-F and G) issued by the respondent No.5. By the impugned order and the endorsements, the petitioners'' request for the transfer of authorization for distribution of foodgrains and kerosene on compassionate grounds is turned down.
Sri M.B.Chandrachooda, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one late H.B.Gangadharappa was given the authorization in the year 1999. He died 17 years thereafter, that is, on 13.11.2016. His wife, Smt.H.B.Chandramma, the petitioner No.1 herein made an application for the transfer of said authorization to her son Sri H.G.Yatheesh, the petitioner No.2 herein. He submits that the impugned order and the endorsements state that the transfer of authorization is impermissible, as the original authorization-holder had reached 62 years of age.
The learned counsel submits that the request for authorization cannot be rejected on the ground of the authorization-holder reaching the age of 62 years. In support of his submission, he relies on this Court''s order, dated 04.06.2015 (Annexure-H) passed in Writ Petition No.45288/2014 and connected writ petitions.
Sri Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the issuance of the impugned order and the endorsements are traceable to the proviso to Rule 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2016. The provisions contained therein read as follows:
"13. Prohibition of Transfer of Authorisation: No authorized dealer shall assign or transfer his authorization to any other person by and no person shall carry on business as a transferee or otherwise on behalf of any such authorized dealer.
"Provided that the authorized authority may order for such transfer in the event of the death of the authorized dealer before 60 yrs of age, to the spouse or son or unmarried daughter, in case he or she is above 18 yrs and less than 30yrs (or 40 yrs for unmarried daughters) of age having passed 10th standard and has applied for transfer within 90 days of the death of the authorized dealer, with the prior approval of the Commissioner for a maximum period of 3 years viz., the period of validity of a fresh authorization."
The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. It is not in dispute that at the age of 62 years also, the authorization given to late H.B.Gangadharappa was continued. On his demise at the age of 62 years, now the respondents are refusing to transfer the authorization to his son on the ground that his father was aged 62 years. Such a justification for denying the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds is absolutely unsustainable. The proviso to Rule 13 only contains the enabling power and not any prohibition or embargo.
The matter is also squarely covered by this Court''s order, dated 04.06.2015 (Annexure-H) passed in Writ Petition No.45288/2014 and connected writ petitions. I therefore allow these petitions by quashing the impugned order and the endorsements and direct the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners'' request for the transfer of authorization in favour of the petitioner No.2 and pass appropriate orders thereon within six weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today''s order.
No order as to costs.