G.S. DOOD PEER Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND TASILDHAR, HOLALKERE TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No. 1 to 3. He is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to transfer the kerosene license No. 32/92 -93 which is in the name of late Khasim Sab to the name of the petitioner. The petitioner is also seeking for a direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 to take a decision on the applications dated 08.03.2013 and 21.05.2013 at Annexures -'N' and 'O' to the petition.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the kerosene vending license bearing No. 32/92 -93 is granted in favour Khasim Sab that is the grand father of the petitioner. The grand father of the petitioner has expired on 13.09.2012. His only son H.K. Syed Hussain i.e., the father of petitioner predeceased him on 15.06.2008. In a normal circumstance, keeping in view the provision as contained in the regulations, the son of Khasim Sab that is the father of the petitioner herein would have been entitled to seek for transfer of the license/authorization in his favour. The present situation has arisen in view of the son of the licensee having predeceased him.

(3.) AT the first instance, it is to be noticed that the regulations provide for transfer of license in favour of the wife, son and unmarried daughter of the deceased licensee. In that circumstance, the question that would also arise is as to whether the petitioner being the grand -son could be considered for grant of license. Though such consideration in detail was required to be made, in the instant petition, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for mandamus to consider the application. From the facts since it is already noticed that the grand mother of the petitioner that is the wife of the licensee is still alive and she had also made an application and such application had been rejected by the endorsement dated 29.12.2012, this aspect of the matter would assume importance and the correctness or otherwise of the said endorsement would certainly arise for consideration in the instant petition, keeping in view the sequence of events that has been noticed above and the benefit of the business is for the family as a whole. In such situation, when such endorsement is not sustainable in law, certainly this Court would be entitled to mould the relief and appropriate direction could be issued in the instant petition itself, since the petitioner is not claiming any other rival interest as against the said Smt. Fatimabi, but is only proceeding further since her request had been rejected at an earlier point.