(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 02.02.2013 (Annexure -A) passed by the fourth respondent. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent not to issue any new license to start the fair price depot in the petitioner's village by bifurcating the existing ration cards. The petitioner has been granted authorization to run a fair price deport for distribution of food grains and other essential commodities, under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992. The petitioner has been running the fair price depot from the year 1997. He contends that there has been no complaints whatsoever against him with regard to the manner in which he was conducting his business. When this was the position, the second respondent by the order dated 26.11.2010 has passed an order to grant new fair price depot by bifurcating the cards allotted to the petitioner. Though a Notification dated 29.11.2010 has been subsequently issued, no further steps has been taken in that regard in as much as by the subsequent order in respect of the cards removed from the petitioner's fair price depot. The essential commodities however is being distributed by mobile vans. The petitioner, therefore contends that the present action to bifurcate and remove 282 cards from the petitioner's fair price depot is actuated by malafides in as much as certain persons belonging to the Uppara Community have refused to take the essential commodities from the petitioner's shop since he belongs to Schedule Caste. The learned counsel also refers to the Circulars issued by the Secretary to the Government, to the Deputy Commissioner stating that such practice cannot be resorted to. In the instant case, there is no other allegation except that a group of persons belonging to the Uppara Community having refused to receive the food gains from the petitioner's fair price depot. It is therefore contended that the Appellate Authority has not properly considered this aspect of the matter and as such, the order dated 02.02.2013 impugned at Annexure - 'A' is also not sustainable.
(2.) THE learned Government Advocate based on the instructions issued to him through the parawise comments would submit that the order passed by the Authority is in consequence with the power available to the Authorities under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (PDS) Control Order, 1992. It is contended that Clause 11 of the Order provides with regard to the assignment of the rations cards and in such circumstance, it would be also open for the Authorities to withdraw certain cards subject to the minimum number, i.e., provided therein being maintained. In the instant case, it is contended that since 282 card holders had not received the essential commodities and there were certain complaints against the petitioner with regard to his behaviour with the said card holders, the Authorities in the interest of the card holders had made alternate arrangement and the same does not call for interference.
(3.) ON the other hand, as already noticed, the said order also does not refer to any other enquiry said to have been made by the Deputy Commissioner or through his subordinate officer, to come to a conclusion that 282 card holders belonging to a particular community should be removed from the fair price depot being run by the petitioner. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, certainly it is not a case where the respondents, pursuant to any complaint against the petitioner has held an appropriate enquiry and has thereafter come to the said conclusion. Further, even though the power of assigning the appropriate number of cards to each fair price depot is available to the Authorities under Clause 11 of the order, the exercise of such power in the instant case does not appear to be bonafide more particularly in a circumstance where I have referred to the report dated 02.04.2009 which certainly has formed the basis for the present action.