Essential Commodities Act: Karnataka HC Upholds State's Prerogative To Impose Conditions For Grant Of Authorization/ Compassionate Appointment

Justice P S Dinesh Kumar said,

"The State Government's power and prerogative to impose conditions while considering the applications for grant of authorisation is upheld."

However, it clarified that, "Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case and large number of orders passed by this Court in several Writ Petitions filed by similar applicants, the State Government shall consider the case of petitioners who have approached this Court with these Writ Petitions without reference to the 'age' and 'pass in SSLC' as one time measure. This order shall be restricted only to the writ petitioners and shall not be treated as a precedent."

Case Background:

The distribution of essential commodities in the State was controlled and governed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1966 and the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 1992.

In June 2016, the State Government issued a notification giving effect to 2016 (Control) Order, where Rule 13 of provided that the authorized authority may order for such transfer in the event of the death of the authorized dealer before 60 yrs of age, to the spouse or son or unmarried daughter, in case he or she is above 18yrs and less than 30 yrs (or 40 yrs for unmarried daughters) of age having passed 10th standard and has applied for transfer within 90 days of the death of the authorized dealer. The period of validity of fresh authorization was for a maximum period of 3 years.

This was amended on several occasions, including on May 20, 2017, on March 17, 2020, and on January 16, 2021.

The resultant effect is, in case of death of an authorised dealer before attaining the age of 65 years, the authorisation can be transferred to his spouse who is aged less than 65 years or unemployed son or unmarried daughter aged more than 18 years or widowed daughter aged more than 18 years. Such transferees must have passed 10th standard or equivalent qualification as on the date of the death of the authorised dealer. The period of validity of fresh authorization was 5 years, enhanced to 10 years in 2021.

The batch of petitioners who claimed to be the dependants of the respective deceased authorisation holder were aggrieved by two conditions. Firstly, imposition of 'pass in 10th Standard' and secondly, the period of renewal.

Petitioners submissions:

Advocate H.C. Shivaramu for the petitioners contended that distribution of commodities is an essential and integral part in the daily lives of citizens. Though the authorisation is given to one member in the family, he is assisted by other members of the family and therefore the entire family depends on the authorisation for their livelihood. Therefore the condition of 'pass in 10th Standard' is unsustainable in law. It was also argued that the maximum period of validity of fresh authorisation being limited to five years is also arbitrary.

State Opposed the Plea

Additional Advocate General Dhyan Chinnappa argued that there is no vested right in the dependents of the authorisation holder to get a fresh authorisation in their name. "The petitioners' claim is akin to that of dependants of employees who seek appointment on compassionate grounds," he submitted.

Further he contended that keeping in view various aspects of the matter, the State Government have framed the instant policy to provide an opportunity to the dependants to tide over the sudden economic crisis in the event of death of an authorisation holder and five years is sufficient for the same.

It was also said that the condition pass in 10th Standard is necessary because the person holding authorisation is required to have minimum knowledge in the measurements and Bank transactions.

Court findings

Firstly the court said, "Learned AAG, is right in his submission that petitioners' case is similar to that of appointment on compassionate grounds. It is settled that the application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds has to be considered as per the policy in existence as on the date of death of the employee."

It added that,

"It is also settled that in the case of compassionate appointments the employer is entitled to frame policies. On the same premise, the State Government are entitled to frame policies in the case of commodity distributions also."

Then the court noted that the State Government have throughout maintained the condition of pass in '10th Standard' consistently in all the notifications. It said, "The condition of 'pass in 10th Standard' is a reasonable condition. Learned AAG, is also right in contending that a person who deals with commodity distribution is required to have basic knowledge in arithmetic, Banking and liaison with public offices. The other conditions with regard to age is also a matter of policy and the same is just and appropriate."

Accordingly it held that, "Learned advocates for the petitioners have not urged any cogent arguments as to how the condition of pass in '10th Standard' and the prescription of age is ultra vires the Constitution. Therefore, the condition of 'pass in 10th Standard' cannot be found fault with."

As the state government in the notification issued in 2021 has extended the authorisation to 10 years. The court said that, "It is just and appropriate to harmonise the three earlier notifications dated June 10, 2016, May 20, 2017 and March 17, 2020. In respect of the petitioners whose applications fall for consideration in any of these three Notifications, the condition of five years is contrary to the progressive and subsequent view taken by the State Government in 2021 Notification extending it to 10 years."

Since several applicants have taken the benefit of interim orders passed by the court for consideration of their cases without reference to restriction of age and SSLC qualification. The court directed, "It is desirable for the State Government to consider the cases of these writ petitioners, without reference to the restriction of 'age' and 'pass in 10th Standard' which shall be in parity with various orders passed by this Court in several writ petitions."

Case Title: Manmohankumar V.C v. The State Of Karnataka

Case No: W.P. No.13559 OF 2020

Date of Order: December 23, 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 13

Appearance: Advocate Shivaramu H.C a/w Advocate Sharath S. Gowda for petitioner; AAG Dhyan Chinnappa a/w Advocate M. Vinod Kumar for respondents

Click Here To Read/Download Order