Adopted Son’s Fair-Price Shop Authorization Can Be Cancelled If State Finds Adoption Claim Not Genuine: Karnataka HC

Darshan sought transfer of a fair-price-shop authorisation as the adopted son of the deceased owner, Lalithamma.

The Joint Director rejected his application, citing the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and stating that the adoption occurred after the owner’s death.

A Single Judge directed transfer, relying on an earlier decision recognising the eligibility of adopted sons for compassionate transfer.

The State appealed.

It disputed the genuineness and timing of the adoption, pointing to school records naming Darshan’s biological parents and a pending suit seeking correction of his SSLC records.

The State had meanwhile transferred the authorisation in compliance with the Single Judge’s order.

The Court noted that the appellants did not dispute that adopted children could not be denied transfer of fair-price-shop authorisations on compassionate grounds.

The Single Judge had relied on the decision in W.P. No. 22431/2024 and connected matters, which recognised the eligibility of spouses, sons and adopted sons for such transfer.

The Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, had been cited by the Joint Director when rejecting Darshan’s application, but the appellate Court did not interpret or determine its application.

The Court’s decision rested on the principle that entitlement based on adoption depends on the adoption claim being genuine, and that an adverse decision must follow an opportunity to be heard.

Darshan’s claim to compassionate transfer depended on his assertion that he was adopted by the deceased shop owner.

The Court considered that assertion seriously disputed: the school records identified his biological parents, the State challenged the circumstances and date of execution and registration of the adoption deed, and a suit to amend the school records was pending.

Since neither the original endorsement nor the Single Judge’s order had examined the adoption’s validity, the Court left that question to the authorities rather than deciding it on appeal.

It also clarified that prior compliance with the transfer order did not prevent the authorities from acting on an adverse finding, provided Darshan was heard.

The authorities may determine whether Darshan’s adoption claim is genuine and, if they find it is not, may pass an appropriate order after giving him an opportunity to be heard.

The appellants may cancel the transfer if they take an adverse view; all parties’ rights and contentions were left open.