Shri Shivappa S/O Basavanneppa Koppadganiger v. Government of Karnataka

Order, 1992').

¶6Rule 17 of the Control Order, 1992 reads as under: "17. Appeal : (1) Any person aggrieved, by an Order of the Authorized Authority refusing to issue or renew an authorization or canceling or suspending an authorization or forfeiting the security deposited by the authorized dealer under the provisions of this order may appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of receipt by him of such order. Provided that the Appellate Authority may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filling it within that period.

(2) No such appeal shall be disposed of unless the aggrieved person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(3) Pending the disposal of an appeal, the Appellate Authority may direct that the order under appeal shall not take affect until the appeal is disposed of."

¶7The appellant is not in a position to dispute the aforementioned provision and the fact that he has an alternative and efficacious remedy.

¶8It is seen from the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has not examined whether the petitioner is entitled to automatic renewal of the licence as prayed for by him or not. It is also not examined whether the petitioner was granted licence only to supply kerosene or also for supplying food grains. Further it has also not examined whether the permission to supply goods was for a temporary period or not.

¶9Further, both the appellant as well as the respondents/State are of the opinion that the appellant should be relegated to the appellate authority to address his grievance. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the appellant is granted liberty to approach the appellate authority and to accord him protection for a period of 30 days. Hence, the impugned order passed in W.P. No. 102099/2024 is hereby set aside.

¶10The appeal is disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant to approach the appellate authority in terms of the Rule 17 of the Control Order, 1992. A period of 30 days from today is granted to the appellant to prefer such appeal and the appellate authority is directed to consider the application of the

appellant on merits in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

¶11The respondents shall not take any precipitative action against the appellant for the said period of 30 days or till any order is passed by the appellate authority, whichever is earlier.

¶12In view of the disposal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE

VB/CT:BCK/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18

NC:(2026:KHC-D:619-DB( WA(No.(100560(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA,(AT(DHARWAD( THDATED(THIS(THE(20 (DAY(OF(JANUARY,(2026( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(M.I.ARUN( (AND(( (THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(B.(MURALIDHARA(PAI( WRIT(APPEAL(NO.(100560(OF(2025((GM-PDS)( ( BETWEEN:(( ( SHRI,SHIVAPPA,, S/O,BASAVANNEPPA,KOPPADGANIGER,, AGE:,60,YEARS,,OCC.,OWNER,FAIR,PRICE,SHOP,, R/O.,37,S.B.,KOPPADGANIGER,,GANJIGATTI,, TQ.,KALAGHATAGI,,DIST.,DHARWAD-581,204., …,APPELLANT, , (BY,SRI.,AKARSH,MITTALKOD,,ADVOCATE,FOR,, ,,,,,,SRI.,MITTALKOD,SANGAPPA,HUCHACHAPPA,,ADVOCATE), Digital y signedtiby0V0N BADIGER , Location: HIGH0COURT V0N OF KARNATAKA BADIGER DHARWAD AND:( BENCH Date: 2026.01.22 +0530 ( 1., GOVERNMENT,OF,KARNATAKA,, REPRESENTED,BY,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,, FOOD,AND,CIVIL,SUPPLIES,DEPARTMENT,, VIKASA,SOUDHA,,BANGALORE-560,001., , 2., DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,, UB,HILLS,ROAD,,NEAR,HINDI,PRACHAR,SABHA, CIRCLE,,MALMADDI,,DHARWAD,,, KARNATAKA-580,001., NC:(2026:KHC-D:619-DB( WA(No.(100560(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( , 3., JOINT,DIRECTOR,, FOOD,,CIVIL,SUPPLIES,AND,CONSUMER,AFFAIRS,, DHARWAD-580,001., , 4., TAHASILDAR,KALAGHATAGI,, TQ.,KALAGHATAGI,, DIST.,DHARWAD-581,204., …,RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,SHARAD,V.,MAGADUM,,AGA,FOR,R1,AND,R4), , , THIS, WRIT, APPEAL, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 4, OF, KARNATAKA, HIGH, COURT, ACT,, 1961,, PRAYING, TO, CALL, FOR, RECORDS,IN,W.P.,NO.102099/2024,(GM-PDS),ON,THE,FILE,OF, SINGLE,JUDGE,OF,THIS,COURT;,SET,ASIDE,THE,ORDER,PASSED, BY, THE, SINGLE, JUDGE, IN, W.P., NO.102099/2024, (GM-PDS), DATED, 28.07.2025, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW, THE, WRIT, PETITION, AN, QUASH, THE, ENDORSEMENT, DATED, 05.02.2024, AND, DIRECT, THE, RESPONDENT, NO.3, TO, CONSIDER, THE, APPELLANTS,APPLICATION,IN,THE,LIGHT,OF,ORDER,PASSED,IN, W.P.,NO.148551/2020,(GM-PDS),AND,RENEW,THE,LICENSE,FOR, RUNNING, FAIR, PRICE, SHOP, LICENSE, IN, THE, INTEREST, OF, JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY,AND,ETC., , , THIS,APPEAL,IS,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING,, THIS,DAY,,JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, THE,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,M.I.ARUN, AND,, THE,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,B.,MURALIDHARA,PAI, ( ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) 1. The appellant herein preferred W.P. No.102099/2024 on the ground that the authorities concerned refused to renew his licence granted to run a fair price shop. 2. The learned Single Judge without examining whether the appellant was entitled to renewal or not, passed the following order: "3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been distributing food grains for 20 years. The license having expired, the learned AGA submits that given 6 weeks time, a paper publication would be taken inviting applicants for the purpose of distribution of food grains in Ganjigatti, Kalghatagi taluk and the same would answer the grievance of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner would take part in the said application process by submitting his application as regard to the advertisement taken out by respondent and if successful the petitioner could be awarded the authorization. 4. Hence, with the above observation the petition stands disposed with a further direction to the respondent to continue to supply the food grains to the petitioner until the above process is completed." 3. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed. 4. The case of the appellant is that he is entitled to automatic renewal of the licence to run a fair price shop, more so in the light of the fact that he has not committed any violations which would prohibit him from being granted such renewal. It is further contended that once a licence is granted, unless it is cancelled for violation of the conditions mentioned therein or under the rules applicable to fair price shops, he is entitled to automatic renewal. 5. Per contra, learned AGA, upon instructions, submits that the appellant is not entitled to automatic renewal and that he is entitled only to one-time renewal, thereafter the authorities hav