Gangothri Yuvaka Sangha Vs. Yarab Youth Association and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 5 & karnataka essential commodities (public distribution system) control order, 1992, clauses 4,5 & 11: [n.k. patil, j] distribution of essential commodities to card holders - setting up of fair price depots for purpose of held, under clause 11(2) of the control order, the authorised dealers/holders are entitled to hold minimum of 300 cards. in some exceptional cases, the number of cards can even be reduced to 200 cards as provided under proviso to control order,1992. in the instant case, it is not the case of petitioners that, in view of the impugned notification, the number of cards held by them is going to be reduced or curtailed from the prescribed limit of 300 cards. if it is not reduced then, they should not have any grievance before this court against the issuance of.....orderk.l. manjunath, j. 1. petitioner and respondent 1 are associations registered under the karnataka societies registration act, 1960. pursuant to a notification issued by the deputy commissioner, tumkur, petitioner, 1st respondent along with others filed applications for grant of authorisation to run a fair price depot at kuruvel village, tumkur taluk. after considering all the applications, the deputy commissioner granted authorisation in favour of the petitioner-association. aggrieved by the selection of the petitioner-association the first respondent filed an appeal before the commissioner for food and civil supplies, bangalore contending that the secretary of the petitioner-association was earlier distributing kerosene under the public distribution system and his licence was.....

Judgment:
ORDER

K.L. Manjunath, J.

1. Petitioner and respondent 1 are associations registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Pursuant to a notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur, petitioner, 1st respondent along with others filed applications for grant of authorisation to run a fair price depot at Kuruvel Village, Tumkur Taluk. After considering all the applications, the Deputy Commissioner granted authorisation in favour of the petitioner-association. Aggrieved by the selection of the petitioner-association the first respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner for Food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore contending that the Secretary of the petitioner-association was earlier distributing kerosene under the public distribution system and his licence was cancelled due to some irregularities in distributing kerosene.

2. According to the 1st respondent the Secretary has studied upto B.A. Degree and the Secretary of the petitioner-association completed only 7th Standard. The 1st respondent has also contended that the petitioner-association is not in existence for the last three years, therefore the petitioner-society was not eligible to be considered as a valid applicant. The Commissioner after hearing both the parties had allowed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner and the 1st respondent-associations were not in existence three years prior to the date of the notification and therefore directed the Deputy Commissioner to invite fresh applications and grant authorisation in accordance with law. This order is called in question in the present writ petition.

3. I have heard learned Counsels for the parties.

4. The authorisation granted in favour of the petitioner has been set aside by the Commissioner only on the ground that the petitioner and the 1st respondent-societies were not existence three years prior to the date of their applications. In the circumstances the Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner to call for fresh applications and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law.

5. Clause 5 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (for short, 'the Order') deals with the eligibility criteria. It is not the case of the Commissioner that the petitioner was not eligible to file an application as per Clause 5 of the Order. Exit three years period has to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner in order to give preference to the applicants as per Clause 6(1)(b), Note (ii). Therefore, in this background this Court has to be examined whether the petitioner's case has been considered by the Deputy Commissioner by giving preference as contemplated under Clause 6(1)(b) of the Order.

6. In the instant case there were 16 applicants. Out of 16 applicants 4 applications were filed on behalf of the societies including the petitioner, 1st respondent-Jayamaruthi Yuvaka Sangha and M/s. Sangam Mahila Samaj and the remaining applications were filed by individuals. In page 2 of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, he has considered the applications filed by the individuals as well as registered societies. None of the individual applicant's have satisfied the eligibility criteria. In view of these circumstances the Deputy Commissioner was required to consider the applications filed by the 4 registered associations. Considering the inter se merits of all these societies the Deputy Commissioner granted authorisation to the petitioner-society. Therefore this Court is of the opinion that the authorisation granted in favour of the petitioner was not giving any preference as contemplated under Clause 6 of the Order but considering the merits of all the applicants. The Commissioner has set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner only on the ground that the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent do not fulfil Note (ii) of Clause 6(1)(b) of the Order and therefore directed the Deputy Commissioner to invite fresh applications from the eligible candidates. If the Commissioner had rejected the applications of the petitioner considering Clause 5 of the Order this Court would not have interfered with the order passed by the Commissioner. But the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent have not fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Considering the fact that both these societies were not in existence three years prior to the date of applications. But as observed in the earlier paragraphs three years period has to be considered when the question of preference arises. Since no preference has been given to the petitioner-society by the Deputy Commissioner the order passed by the Commissioner has to be set aside.

7. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Commissioner at Annexure-B, dated 13-12-1999 is hereby quashed.