Judgment :- The petitioner espousing the public cause of rise in prices of all essential commodities has preferred the above public interest litigation seeking the following reliefs: (i) direct the respondents to either ban temporarily open trading of all essential commodities or unlike and release enforceable weekly list of ceiling rates of wholesale and retail rates of all essential commodities and vegetables so ask to motivate people to buy either in whole sale or equip the people to question any abnormal rates which retailers may charges; (ii) suspend the operation of 1st proviso to Clause 3 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Order, 1986 and in lieu thereof direct the respondent to fix stock and turnover limits on wholesale and retail dealers by treating as one unit the wholesalers or retailers who have more than one unit; (iii) direct the respondents to strictly enforce provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 and widely public names of violators of essential commodities law; and (iv) direct setting up of a machinery of public participation watch committees for close surveillance to bring to justice the law violators. 2.1. Mr. X.M. Joseph, learned counsel arguing on behalf of the petitioner submits that food is a birth right of every person and it should be made available to everyone; food is a human right and therefore everyone has a right to thrive for the standard of living adequate for health and well being of himself and his family members; every man, woman and child has inalienable right to be free from hunger; right to adequate food is economic, social and cultural right and therefore, every State is obliged to ensure that everyone has access to the minimum essential food. Therefore, placing reliance on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the above reliefs. 2.2. It is his further contention that it is only for this purpose the Essential Commodities Act has been enacted by the Central Government to provide for control of the production, supply and distribution of, trade and commerce, in essential commodities. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 4.1. The presumption is that the Essential Commodities Act has been enacted by the legislature and that the executives are implementing the same effectively. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 4.1. The presumption is that the Essential Commodities Act has been enacted by the legislature and that the executives are implementing the same effectively. The act is also intended to secure equitable distribution and availability of essential commodities at fair price and both Central and State Governments are entrusted with the powers to achieve the said objective. Therefore, it may not be proper for this Court to exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant the relief as prayed for in this writ petition. 4.2. On the other hand, it is settled law that every legislation particularly in economic matters, is essentially empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call by trial and error method and therefore, it cannot provide for all possible situations or anticipate all possible abuses (vide Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 724 ) 5.1. In this petition, what the petitioner complains are abuse by the businessmen. Therefore, in our considered opinion, is a matter for consideration of the executives to take stock of the same because it is for the legislature to take affirmative responsibility in the matter and it is for the executives to implement the laws enacted by it. The Courts are only conferred with the power to interpret such laws and decide the disputes which are brought before it, but neither to interfere with such commercial legislation or execution of such legislation nor to make an attempt to reconstruct the provisions as sought for in the prayer (2) of the writ petition. It would, in our considered opinion, only add to the complexity of the economic regulations and increase the uncertainty in the public. 5.2 It is settled law that the Courts should avoid such liability to cause errors in the economic regulative measures, bewildering the conflict of the experts and the executives and impose self-restraints and limitations so that judicial wisdom still prevail in such situation. (vide Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 724 ). 6. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, finding no reason to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition, the writ petition stands dismissed. (vide Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 724 ). 6. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, finding no reason to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is reserved liberty to approach the executives, if she has any grievance in this regard.