Karnataka HC Quashes Fresh Fair-Price Shop Notice, Gives Officials One Month to Decide Late Holder’s Daughter’s 2019 Transfer Request

The petitioner’s father held the authorization for Fair Price Shop No. 71 at Bapparagi Village and died on 26 May 2014.

The petitioner applied for transfer of the authorization to her, but the request was rejected on the ground that it had not been made within 90 days of her father’s death.

In W.P. No. 214190/2020, the High Court quashed that rejection and directed the Deputy Director to consider her application dated 25 November 2019 without insisting on an educational qualification.

The petitioner later challenged a notification dated 16 September 2026 inviting fresh applications for the same Fair Price Shop, alleging that the earlier direction had not been complied with.

The petition invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The controlling direction was the order in W.P. No. 214190/2020, which required the authority to consider the petitioner’s application dated 25 November 2019 without insisting on an educational qualification.

The Court applied the principle that an authority must comply with a subsisting judicial direction before proceeding inconsistently with it.

The earlier order required the Deputy Director to consider the petitioner’s application, but the authority had not done so before issuing a fresh notification for the same shop.

The Court therefore found that the notification had been issued without compliance with its prior direction and held that it warranted interference.

It directed the authority to decide the application in accordance with that direction.

It issued a mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner’s application dated 25 November 2019 in accordance with the order in W.P. No. 214190/2020, within one month of receiving a copy of the judgment.