High Court of Karnataka Quashes Endorsement Denying Fair Price Shop Authorization to 78-Year-Old Widow in Food and Civil Supplies Matter — Failure to Consider Representation and Lack of Speaking Order Violates Principles of Natural Justice. The court held that the impugned endorsement was a non-speaking order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with a speaking order.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 16:35:18

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Lakshmamma, a 78-year-old widow, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. She sought a writ of certiorari to quash an endorsement dated 20.03.2025 issued by Respondent No.2, the Joint Director (Food), Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Tumkur, which rejected her representation dated 19.02.2025 seeking authorization as a fair price shop dealer. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to consider her representation afresh. The court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the Additional Government Advocate, found that the impugned endorsement was a non-speaking order and did not consider the petitioner's representation on merits. The court held that the endorsement was not sustainable in law and quashed it. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration, directing that a speaking order be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Food and Civil Supplies - Fair Price Shop Authorization - Speaking Order - The endorsement rejecting the petitioner's representation was a non-speaking order and did not consider the petitioner's representation on merits - Held that the impugned endorsement is quashed and the matter is remitted back to Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration in accordance with law (Paras 1-3).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 20.03.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner's representation for authorization as a fair price shop dealer is sustainable in law.

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 20.03.2025 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. Respondent No.2 is directed to pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Law Points

Natural Justice
Speaking Order
Consideration of Representation
Writ of Certiorari
Writ of Mandamus

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (11) 16

WP No. 31337 of 2025 (GM-PDS)

2025-11-18

Suraj Govindaraj

Sri. Lakshmikanth K. for petitioner, Sri. Sidarth Baburao, AGA for respondents

Lakshmamma

The State of Karnataka by its Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, and The Joint Director (Food), Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an endorsement rejecting representation for fair price shop authorization.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of endorsement dated 20.03.2025 and direction to Respondent No.2 to consider her representation dated 19.02.2025.

Filing Reason

The endorsement rejecting the petitioner's representation was a non-speaking order and did not consider the representation on merits.

Issues

Whether the impugned endorsement is a speaking order and sustainable in law.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the endorsement was non-speaking and did not consider her representation on merits.

Ratio Decidendi

An endorsement rejecting a representation must be a speaking order and must consider the representation on merits; failure to do so renders the order unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned endorsement is a non-speaking order and does not consider the representation of the petitioner on merits. The impugned endorsement is quashed. The matter is remitted back to Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed representation on 19.02.2025; Respondent No.2 issued endorsement on 20.03.2025 rejecting it; petitioner filed writ petition on 18.11.2025; court heard and disposed of the petition on the same day.