SHIVAKUMAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 7-1-2013. By the said endorsement, the respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner seeking transfer of the licence in favour of the petitioner as provided under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (for short, the 'Control Order'). The case of the petitioner is that he is the adopted son of late C. Rudraiah of Kadu Kothana Halli, Maddur Taluk. Since late C. Rudraiah did not have any children, the petitioner was adopted at the age of three years and has thereafter been taken care of late C. Rudraiah. The said late Rudraiah had been granted authorisation in respect of a Fair Price Depot and he is stated to have been running the same till his death. Since the Control Order provides that in the case of death of a licensee, the authorisation could be transferred on compassionate ground in favour of the 'spouse', 'son' or 'unmarried daughter', the petitioner claiming to be the 'adopted son' of the licensee had made the application seeking transfer of the authorisation on compassionate ground. In reply to the same, the endorsement dated 7-1-2013 has been issued by which the request of the petitioner has been declined. While doing so, the respondent has also made reference to an earlier order dated 10-10-2011 wherein detailed consideration was made and a similar request of another applicant had been rejected.

(2.) In the light of the above, two aspects arise for consideration herein. Firstly, the question is as to whether an 'adopted son' can seek the benefit as provided under the Control Order for transfer of authorisation under the compassionate ground. Second question is with regard to the nature of consideration that is required to be made by the authorities with regard to the claim of the persons contending that he or she is the adopted son or daughter of a licensee.

(3.) On the first aspect of the matter, though the Deputy Commissioner has referred to a similar order dated 10-10-2011 and in the said order reference has been made to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, to deny the benefit to the applicant therein, I am of the opinion that the said order even if it has attained finality cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case only for that reason without making factual determination. On this aspect, it is to be clarified that the benefit of compassionate appointment under the Rules 1996 is not available to an adopted son or daughter, since by the said Rules, it has been specifically excluded by sub-rule (3) therein. If in that context, the provision contained in Clause 13 of the Control Order is perused, the proviso reads as hereunder: