K.P. KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AUTHORISATION under Clause 3 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (for short, the 'Control Order') granted on 13 -11 -2008, in favour of the petitioner, when questioned in appeal, having not been interfered with as per order dated 13 -5 -2009, W.P. No. 17463 of 2009 was filed by the 5th respondent, who was a rival applicant. The writ petition was allowed on 10 -8 -2009 and the matter was remanded to the Authorised Authority, to consider all the six applications afresh, having regard to the relevant provision of the Control Order. The Authorised Authority having issued an authorisation in favour of the 5th respondent, vide order dated 8 -3 -2010, when questioned by the petitioner in Appeal No. 4 of 2010 -2011, was upheld on 28 -1 -2012. A revision petition filed against the said orders in No. FCS 12/ECA/2012 having been dismissed on 29 -4 -2014, this writ petition was filed assailing the aforesaid orders and to direct the 3rd respondent to grant the authorisation in favour of the petitioner. Sri T.A. Karumbaiah, learned Advocate, contended that the impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that the petitioner having run the fair price depot without any complaint from 13 -11 -2008, the 3rd respondent was unjustified in granting the authorisation on 8 -3 -2010, in favour of the 5th respondent. He submitted that the petitioner's livelihood has been affected on account of the upholding of the order dated 8 -3 -2010 of the respondent. He submitted that, since the case of the petitioner has not received lawful consideration in the hands of respondents 1 to 3 and the impugned orders being perverse and arbitrary, interference is called for.

(2.) SRI H.C. Shivaramu, learned Advocate for the 5th respondent, on the other hand contended that the order passed on 10 -8 -2009 in W.P. No. 17463 of 2009 having become final and there being a mandamus issued to consider the six applications afresh and the 5th respondent being an unemployed graduate, falling within the order of priority for grant of authorisation under Clause 6(1)(b)(v), the 3rd respondent is justified in ordering issuance (sic) authorisation on 8 -3 -2010 and there being no infirmity in the said order, the 2nd and 1st respondents are justified in passing orders dated 28 -1 -2012 and 29 -4 -2014. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Sakamma v. State of Karnataka by Commissioner and Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore and Others : 1997 (2) Kar. L.J. 490 : ILR 1997 Kar. 1482 and Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeraiah and Others : AIR 1993 SC 929 : (1992) 3 SCC 63 and submitted that the matter having been considered in accordance with law by respondents 1 to 3, no interference with the impugned orders is called for.

(3.) PERUSED the writ record and considered the rival contentions.