G Chowdareddy S/O Gorlu Erappa vs. Ministry For Food

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

$-1-$

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2006

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH

WRIT PETITION No. 50471/2003 (GM-EC)

BETWEEN:

G.Chowdareddy s/o Gorlu Erappa, 35 years, Gadigovaripalli, Chintamani Tq. Kolar Dist.

PETITIONER

(By Advocate Sri.G.Pape Gowda)

AND:

の地域には、そのことは、そのことは、そのことは、そのことは、現代は、現代は、現代は、現代は、日本の時間は、19年の10年の時間は、19年の10年の10年の10年の10年の10年の10年の10年の10年の10年の10

• 1. Ministry for Food & Civil Supplies, Govt. of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-1.
• 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District. Kolar.
• 3. The Deputy Director, Dept. of Food & Civil Supplies, Kolar Dist. Kolar.
• 4. The Tahsildar, Chintamani Tq. Chintamani.

RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.B.N.Prasad. HCGP)

This Writ Petition is filed under Arts.226 & 227 of The Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order dated 30.9.2003 in No.Aa Na Sa $\verb|order|$ $120: ECA: 99$ $\quad\text{and}\quad$ dated 12.3.1999 in No.ECA: FPD:16/98-99 passed $R-1$ $\mathbf{z}$ 3 vide $\mathsf{bv}$ Annexures-A and B.

This petition is coming on for preliminary hearing in B-Group this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

An authorisation was granted to the Kolar petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, under the provisions of the Essential Commodities (PDS) Control Order, 1992. Authorisation granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, based $\alpha$ the inspection report of the Tahsildar. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is produced as Being aggrieved by the order passed Annexure-B. by the Deputy Commissioner, petitioner also filed a revision petition before the Hon'ble Minister Revision petition for Food & Civil Supplies. filed by the petitioner before the Minister has also been dismissed on 30.9.2003 as per Annexure-

$-2-$

سمعهم

A to the writ petition. Challenging these two concurrent findings, present petition is filed.

$2.$ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Govt. Pleader for the respondents.

Though several grounds are urged by the $3.$ learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time arguments he mainly contends $\quad\text{of}\quad$ that Deputy Commissioner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner has cancelled $\quad\hbox{the}\quad$ authorisation. According to him, notice issued to the was petitioner calling upon him to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 10.7.1998 and he requested the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, to grant some time to file statement of objections. Though such a prayer was made, without grantingtime for the petitioner to file his objections and to substantiate his case, Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to pass the order. Therefore, he requests this court to set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as by the

&

$-3-$

Hon'ble Minister Annexures-B $\quad\text{as}\quad$ per and $\rm{A}$ Govt. Pleader has produced the respectively. maintained order-sheet bv the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar. Order-sheet discloses that on 10.7.1998 petitioner herein has requested time to file objections. But unfortunately, Deputy Commissioner has posted the matter for orders on 7.7.1998. 7.7.1998 From case was further adjourned to different dates and on all the dates of hearing Deputy Commissioner was otherwise busy and no case taken up for hearing. was Ultimately, on 12.3.1999 order has been passed as From the above facts, it is per Annexure-B. clear that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his objections. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Hon'ble Minister order of for $\mathsf{Food}$ & Civil Supplies, are require to be quashed and that the matter is required to be remitted back to the

رحم

fresh Kolar $\overline{f}$ or Deputy Commissioner, t consideration.

$-5-$

Accordingly, this petition $\texttt{is}$ allowed. $4.$ Annexure-B dated 12.3.1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar and Annexure-A dated 30.9.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Food & Civil Supplies, are hereby quashed. Matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, fresh consideration by giving reasonable $\quad\text{for}\quad$ opportunity to the petitioner. $Q$ $\star$ .

$Sd/-$ <br>Judge

$R/190106$