IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 38556 OF 2025 (GM-PDS)

BETWEEN:

SRI N S NAGARAJU

S/O N.B SADASHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

FAIR PRICE SHOP NO.30017-154,

KUMBARAGUNDI

SHIVAMOGA TOWN -577201.

Digitally

…PETITIONER

signed by

VANAMALA

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M.,ADVOCATE)

N

Location:

HIGH

COURT OF AND:

KARNATAKA

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,

SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR-CUM-

COMPETENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SIDHARATH BABU RAO., AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO. RPR/CR-13/2021-22 DATED 02.08.2025 PRODUCED AS ANNX-D TO THE WP.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has authorization to operate a Fair Price Shop No.154 at Kumbaragundi, Shivamogga. The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's order dated 02.08.2025 [Annexure-D]. The second respondent, by this order has cancelled the petitioner's authorisation in No.01/2018-19 and forfeited security deposit of Rs.10,000/- with directions to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.29,896/-.

2. Sri B M Siddappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court through the antecedent circumstances, submits that the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court with the writ petition in WP No.16638/2021 when a similar order was passed by the second respondent and that this Court has intervened quashing the second respondent's order restoring the proceedings to the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga [the first respondent] to reconsider the petitioner's appeal. 3. As regards the cause for the present petition, the learned counsel submits that after this Court's order dated 16.12.2022 in the writ petition in W.P. No.16638/2021, the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga, has restored the matter to the second respondent once again for consideration and the second respondent has reiterated the findings notwithstanding the fact that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation that he has illegally accessed the credentials and locked them to show supply of rice and wheat has ended in a 'B' report.

4. Sri Sidharth Babu Rao, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who is permitted to accept notice for respondents, is heard in the light of this grievance, and the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner, has the benefit as appellate remedy under Clause-17 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities [Public Distribution System] Control Order, 1992 [for short, 'the Control Order'], and that the petitioner must avail such appellate remedy against the second respondent's order. In rejoinder, Sri B M Siddappa submits that the petitioner's remedy under Clause-17 of the Control Order may not be efficacious because the Deputy Commissioner, while restoring the matter to the second respondent for reconsideration, has prejudged the allegations against the petitioner. 5. The first respondent's order dated

10.06.2024 is perused in the light of the grievance, and this Court is of the opinion that the first respondent has not prejudged the issue, and therefore, the petitioner must avail remedy under Clause-17 of the Control Order. However, this Court must hasten to add that if in the event the petitioner avails the appellate remedy under Clause-17 of the Control Order, the first respondent must consider the petitioner's case against the decision to cancel the authorisation not only in the light of the outcome in the criminal proceedings but also other grounds that the petitioner may urge and independent of any observation in the order dated 10.06.2024.

6. The next question for this Court's consideration is whether the second responde