KRISHNARAJA NAGAR TALUK AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CO OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in these petitions have sought for quashing the order Annexure -A dated 23rd November, 2008 issued by the third respondent insofar as it pertains to sl. Nos. 2,40,41 (petitioner 1); 9,10,11 (petitioner No. 2); 8 (petitioner No. 3); 33, 34 (petitioner No. 4); 16, 17, 18, 19 (petitioner no. 5); 24, 25, 26 (petitioner No. 6) and 35 (petitioner-No. 7 ).

(2.) ALL these petitioners claim that, they are all authorised holders for distribution of fair price commodities as provided under the karnataka Essential Commodities (Public distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (here in after referred to as the 'control Order, 1992') As per the terms and conditions of the authorisation given for distribution of the essential commodities, the petitioners herein have been distributing the food grains to the respective card holders coming within their respective jurisdiction and since the date of authorisation, they have been functioning sincerely, honestly and effectively and at no point of time, they have given room for any sort of complaints for misused the distribution of the essential commodities to the card holders. When things stood thus, at the instigation or ill-will towards these petitioners, some people have moved the matter through the second respondent calling for further fresh authorisation to be given to the eligible applicants for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders in the respective villages in order to avoid inconvenience and distance. Accordingly, the competent authority thought it fit to issue the impugned Notification calling for applications from the eligible applicants who are willing to accept the authorisation for distribution of essential commodities subject to terms and conditions and the guidelines specifically with reference to the relevant provisions of the Control Order, 1992, without issuing notice to these petitioners and without affording opportunity to them. Therefore, all these petitioners are constrained to redress their grievance by presenting these petitions, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Government pleader appearing for respondents