SATISH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11484
WP No. 204094 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030105192026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 204094 OF 2026 (GM-EC)
BETWEEN:
SATISH S/O SHIVAJI BIRADAR
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O SRIMALI, POST: HALSI TUGAON
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR-585416
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANESH NAIK., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
BY IT’S UNDER SECRETARY
2.
THE COMMISSIONER
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE-560052
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD)
BIDAR-585401
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY
BIDAR-585401
Digitally
signed by
SWETA
KULKARNI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11484
WP No. 204094 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030105192026
5. THE TAHSILDAR BHALKI
TQ: BHALKI
DIST: BIDAR-585328
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VEERANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
This WRIT PETITION is FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE OF
FOLLOWING RELIEFS; I) ISSUES A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
NO. DATED 19.08.2026 VIDE
¸ÀASÉå:D£Á¸À/£Áå¨ÉCA/¹Dgï-62/2026-27
ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4; II) ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DTD.
23.06.2026 OF THE PETITIONER FOR TRANSFER OF
AUTHORIZATION ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND VIDE
ANNEXURE-C; III) ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION
AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN VIEW OF THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“ i) Issues a writ in the nature of certiorari
to quash the endorsement No.
D£Á¸À/£Áå¨ÉCA/¹Dgï-
dated 19.08.2026 vide Annexure-D
62/2026-27
issued by the respondent No.4.
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to consider the
application dtd. 23.06.2026 of the petitioner
for transfer of authorization on compassionate
ground vide Annexure-C.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11484
WP No. 204094 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030105192026
iii) Issue any other order or direction as
this Hon’ble court deems fit in view of the
facts and circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondents and meticulously perused the material
available on record.
3. The petitioner's father, Sri.Shivajirao Biradar
was granted a license to run a fair price shop in the year
1993. The licensee died on 09.05.2026. Thereafter, the
petitioner, who is the son of the deceased licensee,
submitted an application seeking transfer of the
authorization in place of his father. The said application
was considered by respondent No.4 and was rejected
under the impugned endorsement dated 19.08.2026, on
the grounds that the original licensee i.e. the father of the
petitioner had died on 09.05.2026 and at the time of
death, the licensee was aged about 73 years and the
petitioner/applicant had not completed SSLC.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11484
WP No. 204094 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030105192026
4. It is to be noticed that the petitioner's
application was rejected on the grounds that the original
licensee had crossed the age of 65 years as at the time of
death of licensee, he was 73 years old and the petitioner
had not completed SSLC, which are the two criterias
required as per the Rule 13 of the Karnataka Essential
Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order,
2016, as amended in 2017 and 2021 (for short ‘PDS
control order’). It is further to be noticed that this Court in
the case of Sri.Tousif Khan S/o. late Ismail Khan v.
1
The State of Karnataka and Others , has considered a
similar controversy and held that the amendment brought
to the PDS control order would have a prospective effect
and not to the existing license holder. The relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid order is extracted herein
below:
ORAL ORDER
In all these petitions, the petitioners, who are the
sons, spouse, and both married and unmarried daughters
1
WP.No.765/2024 and connected matters dated 31.08.2024
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11484
WP No. 204094 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030105192026
of the deceased dealers, seek the transfer of authorization
to operate fair price shops under the Public Distribution
System (Control Order, 1992) on compassionate grounds.
The deceased dealers had been granted authorization
during their lifetime, and upon their passing, the
petitioners submitted applications requesting the transfer
of the said authorization.
2. The petitioners' applications were rejected on
the grounds that married daughters are not entitled to the
transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds, they
did not meet the requisite qualifications, and the age of
the deceased license holders at the time of death
exceeded 65 years.
3. The learned counsels for the petitioners
contended that the original authorization was granted
under the Control Orders of 1986 and 1992, and as per
the provisions of unamended Clause 13, there was no
restriction on the transfer of authorization on
compassionate grounds. The petitioners argued that the
amended Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021 are not
applicable to authorizations granted under the
unamended orders. Furthermore, the petitioners
contended that married daughters are equally entitled to
the transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds,
citing the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P. No. 51361/2019.
4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the
respondents, along with the learned Additional
Government Advocate (AGA) representing the State,
argued that the amended Clause 13 of the Control Orders
of 2016, 2017, and 2021 explicitly prohibits the transfer
of authorization on compassionate grounds if the
authorized dealer dies after reaching the age of 65 years
or if the transferee does not possess the prescribed
qualifications. They relied on the decision of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 13559/2020 and
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11484
WP No. 204094 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030105192026
connected petitions, which were disposed of on
23.12.2021, to support their position.
5. After carefully considering the arguments put
forth by the learned counsels for the parties, the key
point for deliberation is whether the petitioners are
entitled to the transfer of authorization to run fair price
shops on compassionate grounds.
6. Clause 13 of the unamended Public
Distribution System (Control Order, 1992) dealt with the
prohibition of the transfer of authorization. It states that
no authorized dealer shall assign or transfer their
authorization to any other person, nor shall any person
carry on business on behalf of such an authorized dealer.
However, a proviso to Clause 13 allows for the transfer of
authorization in the event of the death of an authorized
dealer, with prior approval of the Government, to the
spouse, son, or unmarried daughter of the deceased.
7. Subsequent amendments to Clause 13, made
in 2016, 2017, and 2021, introduced restrictions on the
transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds. The
amended provisions prohibit such transfers if the
authorized dealer was over the age of 65 at the time of
death or if the transferee had not completed the 10th
standard and did not apply for the transfer within 90 days
of the death.
8. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P.
No. 13559/2022, upheld the validity of the amended
proviso to Clause 13, but it was dealing with a challenge
related to the renewal of authorization on compassionate
grounds. In W.P. No. 55097/2017,disposed of on
11.12.2017, this Court held that the condition regarding
the age limit imposed in the amended Clause 13 was not
sustainable. The decision in W.P. No. 204335/2014, which
was followed in W.P. No. 43249/2017, ruled similarly.
Furthermore, in W.P. No. 103408/2023, disposed of on
12.06.2023, this Court reiterated that the restrictions
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11484
WP No. 204094 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030105192026
introduced in the Control Orders of 2016, 2017, and 2021
were prospective in nature and could not be applied
retrospectively to authorizations granted under the
unamended Control Order of 1992. Therefore, these
restrictions are only applicable to applicants seeking fresh
authorizations and not to existing authorized dealers or
their legal heirs.
9. In W.P. No. 51361/2019, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court addressed the issue of whether
married daughters are entitled to the transfer of
authorization. In paragraph 3, it was held that the Control
Orders of 2016 and 2021, which provide for the transfer
of authorization to unmarried daughters or widowed
daughters with no source of income, cannot discriminate
against married daughters solely on the basis of their
marital status, provided they have no independent source
of income. Such discrimination violates Articles 14 and 15
of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality
before the law and prohibit discrimination on the grounds
of sex. This view is supported by the decision in
Bhuvaneshwari, where the Court held that the principle
of equality extends to matters of compassionate
appointments as well. The Supreme Court also affirmed
this view in S.L.P. (C) No. 20166/2021, disposed of on
17.12.2021.
10. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench clearly
establishes that there can be no discrimination between
married and unmarried daughters when it comes to the
transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds.
Discriminating against daughters based solely on their
marital status violates the principles of equality enshrined
in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
11. In light of the foregoing, it is evident that
the spouse, sons, adopted sons, and both married and
unmarried daughters of deceased authorized dealers, who
have attained the age of 18 years, are entitled to the
transfer of authorization on compassionate grounds.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11484
WP No. 204094 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030105192026
Denial of such transfers on the grounds of marriage or
other arbitrary criteria is discriminatory and unsustainable
in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
5. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, I
am of the considered view that respondent No.4 has
committed an error in rejecting the petitioner's application
under the impugned order and requires reconsideration of
the same afresh. For the aforementioned reasons, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed .
ii. The impugned endorsement dated
19.08.2026 at Annexure-D issued by
respondent No. 4 is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the writ of mandamus is
issued to respondent No.4 to consider the
petitioner's application dated 23.06.2026
and transfer the authorization on
compassionate ground by considering the
order passed by this Court in the case of
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11484
WP No. 204094 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030105192026
Sri.Tousif Khan S/o. late Ismail Khan
referred supra. The consideration shall be
made within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5