SHAILA VEERAYYA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE endorsement at Annexure -F dated 03.12.2011 issued by the Tahsildar, Aland, is called in question in this writ petition. By the said endorsement, petitioner's prayer for grant of authorization in his favour to distribute kerosene under Public Distribution System, on compassionate grounds is rejected.

(2.) THE records reveal that the petitioner's father namely Irayya Gurushanthayya was authorized to distribute the essential commodities under Public Distribution System. A licence was provided to him. Unfortunately, he expired on 08.09.2004 as is clear from death certificate at Annexure -A. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner's father namely Irayya Gurushanthayya was having licence No. 49/1987 issued under the provisions of Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986. The licence continued till his death and even after death as is clear from the document at Annexure -D.

(3.) THIS Court does not find any ground to deny the relief in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner's father was authorized agent for distributing the essential commodities under Public Distribution System. Annexure -D - licence No. 49/1987 was issued to the petitioner's father under the provisions of Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986. Annexure -D clearly specifies that petitioner's father was authorized to purchase, sale or store kerosene. If it is so, endorsement at Annexure -F under which it is wrongly stated that the petitioner's father did not have licence to distribute the kerosene is bad in the eye of law. The impugned endorsement wrongly states that the petitioner's father did not have licence to distribute the kerosene. Endorsement at Annexure -F is contrary to the licence at Annexure -D and therefore, the impugned endorsement at Annexure -F stands quashed.