VIJAYALAXMI @ HEMALATHA, W/O. SIDDALINGAPPA Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Government Advocate to accept notice for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 and file memo of appearance in four weeks. Considering that the matter requires clarification with regard to the interlocutory order which was passed in a proceedings before the Government of Karnataka on an application filed by the Petitioner herein herself, notice to Respondent No. 5 is unnecessary at this stage, since in any event, the matter on merits will be heard by the Revsional Authority viz., the Secretary to Government.

(2.) THE short question that arises in the instant petition is with regard to the nature of the interim order passed by the Revisional Authority while considering the application filed by the Petitioner herein. In this regard, the brief facts are that the Petitioner was granted authorization by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 8.4.2010 for distribution of essential commodities. The Respondent No. 5 claiming to be aggrieved by the grant of authorization in favour of the Petitioner had Sled an appeal before the second Respondent assailing the order dated 8.4.2010. The said appeal came to be disposed of 21.5.2011. The appeal filed by the Respondent No. 5 was allowed and the authorization granted in favour of the Petitioner was set aside.

(3.) LEARNED Government Advocate would clarify that the order dated 8.4.2010 had remained in operation during the pendency of the appeal, since in any case, the essential commodities had to be distributed. If that be the position, the same position would have to continue till the Revisional Authority decides the matter one way or the other. Therefore, to the extent of the interim order passed by the Revisional Authority, staying the order of the Deputy Commissioner as well cannot be sustained, unless the said order had been stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The order does not disclose that the same had been stayed during the pendency of the appeal before the second Respondent.