AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The petitioner has called into question the order, dated 12.12.2014 (Annexure-K) issued by the respondent No. 3 and the order, dated 01.08.2015 (Annexure-L) passed by the 5th respondent Commissioner and Appellate Authority.
Sri Kalsurmath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been running the fair price depot from 2010 without receiving any complaint from any of the ration cardholders. He submits that 1132 cards were assigned to the petitioner''s fair price depot. The petitioner''s fair price depot caters to the requirements of the card-holders of the four villages, namely, Gundenahalli, Shivapura, Kadamanahalli and Arabagonda. This being the state of affairs, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 decided to establish one more fair price depot at Gundenahalli for the benefit of the card-holders residing in Shivapura and Kadamanahalli. The 4th respondent has given the authorisation by assigning of 734 cards. This has left the petitioner with only 398 cards.
The learned counsel submits that the business of the petitioner is made unviable. He submits that the number of cards is reduced without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He submits that in 2007, the fourth respondent''s authorisation to run the fair price shop was cancelled on account of the mal-practices indulged in the said Society. The learned counsel submits that as per the circular, dated 23.01.2013 (Annexure-G), the petitioner is to be left with at least 500 cards.
Sri M. Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 5 submits that as such there is no criminal case against the fourth respondent Society. Some of its officials are charge-sheeted. He submits that the circular, dated 23.01.2013 only contains the guidelines. Otherwise the original authority and the appellate authority have to only go by the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (''the 1992 Order'' for short). He submits that the priority for giving the authorisation is prescribed by Clause 6 of the 1992 Order, as per which the fourth respondent gets the preference over the petitioner.
Sri B.M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent caveator submits that the fourth respondent''s licence was not cancelled at all at any point of time. He submits that as per the proviso to Clause 11(2) of the 1992 Order, the number of cards for any fair price depot cannot fall below 300 in rural areas. As per the said proviso, it can be reduced to 200 cards in exceptional cases. In the instant case, as many as 370 cards are assigned to the petitioner. He would therefore contend that none of the Rules is violated.
The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The only question that falls for my considerations is whether the fourth respondent is given the authorisation by following the procedure prescribed by the 1992 Order. Clause 4 of the 1992 Order states that the authorised authority shall call for applications by publication of a notice after giving a minimum of 30 days'' time. The impugned order at Annexure-K granting the authorisation to the respondent No. 4 does not even mention on what date the applications were called for, how many applications were received and how they are evaluated. The whole process appears to have been started by holding the spot-inspection and the submission of the report thereon by the Tahasildar.
The impugned order, dated 12.12.2014 is also not reflective of the consideration of the conditions for eligibility prescribed by Clause 5 of the 1992 Order. The impugned order does not even say that the application was received by the authorised authority in from No. A, prescribed by Clause 4(2) of the 1992 Order.
It is trite that if a statute prescribes that a particular act has to be done in a particular manner, that act must be done in that manner only. In saying so, I am fortified by the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .
The appellate authority has also not considered any of these relevant aspects of the matter. Therefore, both the impugned orders - one passed by the original authority and the other passed by the appellate authority - are liable to be quashed and accordingly they are quashed.
However, the quashing of the impugned orders does not mean that 1132 cards stand assigned to the petitioner''s fair price depot. The ends of justice would be met by my directing the authorised authority to call for the applications, examine whether the applicants meet the conditions of eligibility and award the authorisation to the applicant following the order of priority prescribed by Clause 6 of the 1992 Order. In doing so, the original authority shall take into account Clause (i) of the circular, dated 23.01.2013. The said clause provides for equitable distribution of the cards. If the authorised authority is relaxing the guidelines, it has to be only for right reasons.
Until such time that the authorised authority re-does the whole exercise and passes the fresh order, the status-quo as on today shall be maintained. This arrangement is made to ensure that the card-holders are not put to any inconvenience either on account of the lis between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 or on account of the concerned authorities not complying with the requirements of law.
No order as to costs.