1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No. Ahaar : Nya.be.am.pa.vya. : vahi : 02 / 2021 - 2022 dated 17.03.2023 produced at Annexure - D issued by the 3 respondent and for further relief of writ of mandamus to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the application of the petitioner on compassionate ground without insisting the restrictions mentioned in the proviso to clause 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for short, 'the Control Order, 2016').

2. The father of petitioner was running a fair price shop under authority No.15/1996 in PDS area at Gadag and the licence was issued under the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1992 by the competent authority i.e., respondent No.2. The same is renewed from time to time by the competent authority and is valid up to 31.12.2025. There is no dispute with regard to issuance of licence and validity of licence, which was issued to the father of petitioner.

3. The father of petitioner died on 11.02.2022 due to which the petitioner sought for transfer of authorization in his name by way of filing an application dated 11.04.2022. The application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by respondent No.3 on the ground of Clause 13 of the Control Order, 2016. It is seen that the 3rd respondent rejected the application of petitioner on the ground that the Control Order, 2016 had come into force, due to which, the petitioner is not entitled for transfer of licence as the Clause 13 prohibits the transfer of authorization or licence to any person other than the original licencee / authorized dealer. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the Clause 13 of the Control Order, 2016, the proviso to said Clause 13 does not bar the transfer of a licence in case of death of original holder of licence or authorized dealer. Learned counsel further contends that the order of rejection passed by the 3rd respondent is illegal and violative of proviso contained in the Clause 13 of the Control Order, 2016, the same requires to be set aside. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed to consider the application of petitioner for transfer of licence from the deceased father of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

4. Per Contra, learned HCGP representing the State contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the 3rd respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for the reason that the Clause 13 specifically states that no authorized dealer shall assign or transfer his authorization to any other person and no person shall carry on business as a transferee or otherwise on behalf of any such authorized dealer.

5. Learned HCGP submits that the order of respondent No.3 is sustainable and seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned HCGP and having perused the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent. It is apparently seen that the impugned order has been passed based on the original proviso to Clause 13 of the Control Order, 2016. In order to understand the Control Order, 2016 the relevant Clause 13 reads as under :
"13. Prohibition of Transfer of Authorization : No authorized dealer shall assign or transfer his authorization to any other person by and no person shall carry on business as a transferee or otherwise on behalf of any such authorized dealer.
"Provided that the authorized authority may order for such transfer in the event of the death of the authorized dealer before 60 years of age, to the spouse or son or unmarried daughter, in case he or she is above 18 years and less than 30 years (or 40 years for unmarried daughters) of age having passed 10th standard and has applied for transfer within 90 days of the death of the authorized dealer, with the prior approval of the Commissioner for a maximum period of 3 years viz., the period of valid