D. Jayamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

D. Jayamma vs State of Karnataka and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Nov 17, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/379980

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/379980
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: V. Gopala Gowda, J.
Decided On: Nov 17, 1999
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 34406 of 1998
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 376: [Arali Nagaraj, J] Sentence Offence of rape - Accused forcibly raped a girl aged less than 16 years Trial Court imposed sentence of 10 years sentence - High Court reduced it to 4 years on the ground that the accused had aged parents and he is the only earning member and also ...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Karnataka Public Distribution Control Order, 1992 - Clause 4(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D. Jayamma

Advocate Sri B.T. Parthasarathi, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka and Others

Advocate Sri S.N. Aswathanarayana, Additional Govt. Adv. and ; Sri L. Narayana Swamy, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Public Distribution Control Order, 1992 - Clause 4(2)
Reported In: 2000(3)KarLJ642

Excerpt

- indian penal code, 1890.section 376: [arali nagaraj, j] sentence offence of rape - accused forcibly raped a girl aged less than 16 years trial court imposed sentence of 10 years sentence - high court reduced it to 4 years on the ground that the accused had aged parents and he is the only earning member and also that he had no other criminal antecedents. - 4. the impugned order at annexure-a is a well-considered order......the applications for opening fair price shop, the applications in the prescribed form ought to have been filed within 30 days. admittedly the first application filed by the petitioner was not in the prescribed form. having learnt the same, the petitioner submitted the second application on 13-7-1998 which was beyond the prescribed period. therefore, both the applications of the petitioner did not warrant consideration by the authorities. such being the position, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in giving the authorisation to the 5th respondent whose application was in order and who was also eligible in all respects.4. the impugned order at annexure-a is a well-considered order. all the applications have been considered and valid and cogent reasons are assigned for rejecting other applications and selecting the 5th respondent for running the fair price shop. no fault can be found with the said order. therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was rightly rejected under annexure-b.5. no interim order was granted in this writ petition while ordering emergent notice. pursuant to the impugned orders, the 5th respondent might have been running the fair price depot. in view of the passage of time also, the impugned orders need not be disturbed. petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs.6. writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. however, it is observed that if applications are invited in future for running fair price shops in the area and if petitioner files application, priority should be given to her application.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The 5th respondent was granted authorisation to run a fair price depot by the order at Annexure-A, dated 31-7-1998. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal filed by the petitioner had been rejected under Annexure-B, dated 18-8-1998. The petitioner is seeking to quash both the orders in this writ petition. The main contention is that without considering the application of the petitioner the impugned orders are passed.

2. In the counter filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 inter alia it is stated that the petitioner did not apply in the prescribed form within the prescribed time. Since the application filed by the petitioner was not inaccordance with Clause 4(2) of the Public Distribution System Control Order, 1992, the same was not considered.

3. Mr. B.T. Parthasarathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having learnt that her first application was not in order, she filed another application on 13-7-1998, thereby the defect in the first application had been cured. This contention does not merit consideration. As per the notification inviting the applications for opening fair price shop, the applications in the prescribed form ought to have been filed within 30 days. Admittedly the first application filed by the petitioner was not in the prescribed form. Having learnt the same, the petitioner submitted the second application on 13-7-1998 which was beyond the prescribed period. Therefore, both the applications of the petitioner did not warrant consideration by the authorities. Such being the position, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in giving the authorisation to the 5th respondent whose application was in order and who was also eligible in all respects.

4. The impugned order at Annexure-A is a well-considered order. All the applications have been considered and valid and cogent reasons are assigned for rejecting other applications and selecting the 5th respondent for running the fair price shop. No fault can be found with the said order. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was rightly rejected under Annexure-B.

5. No interim order was granted in this writ petition while ordering emergent notice. Pursuant to the impugned orders, the 5th respondent might have been running the fair price depot. In view of the passage of time also, the impugned orders need not be disturbed. Petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs.

6. Writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is observed that if applications are invited in future for running fair price shops in the area and if petitioner files application, priority should be given to her application.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1999 Same Parties D. Jayamma vs State of Karnataka and Others Same Subject Civil Same Judge V. Gopala Gowda, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Public Distribution Control Order, 1992 - Clause 4(2)

Civil