Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1042 (RAJ)

Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-11

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Bela M. Trivedi, J. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the action of the respondent No. 3 in issuing the advertisement dated 03.03.2015 inviting applications for the grant of authorizations for running the fair price shops in the areas mentioned therein under the provisions contained in Rajasthan Food Grains and other material (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Control Order of 1976"). The petitioners have also sought direction against the respondents for not proceeding further with the re-allotment of the said price shops pursuant to the said advertisement. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are fair price shops holders authorised to run fair price shops in the Tehsil Rajgarh District Alwar and each of them have approximately 500 to 600 ration cards holders attached to their respective shops. According to them, their authorisation to run the fair price shops was granted under the provisions contained in the Control Order of 1976 and the said authorisation could not be suspended or cancelled except under the Clause 8 of the said Order. It is also the case of the petitioners that as per the policy of the State Government, on an average, each fair price shop should have 500 ration cards or 2000 units as per the letter dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure-3), however the respondent No. 3 has issued the advertisement dated 03.03.2015 inviting the applications from the persons desirous to have authorisation to run the fair price shop in the areas mentioned therein, including the area where the fair price shops of the petitioners are situated. The petitioners apprehend that on account of allotment of new fair price shops pursuant to the said advertisement in question, number of ration card holders attached to their respective shops would be reduced and it would not be viable for them to run their fair price shops. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore for the petitioners, relying upon the recommendations made by the Justice Wadhwa Committee on Public Distribution System, has submitted that as observed in the said report each fair price shop should have 500 to 1000 cards. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore for the petitioners, relying upon the recommendations made by the Justice Wadhwa Committee on Public Distribution System, has submitted that as observed in the said report each fair price shop should have 500 to 1000 cards. He further submitted that a fair price shop less than 500 ration cards is not viable and as per the policy of the State Government itself, minimum 500 ration cards are necessary to be attached to a fair price shop, for which dealer has been authorized. Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore also submitted that in similar petition, the Coordinate Bench has observed and directed the respondents to ensure that 500 ration cards in respect of the fair price shops are maintained. 4. At the outset, it is required to be stated that the petitioners have not mentioned about the details of the authorisation granted to them under the Control Order of 1976 nor have they produced the authorisation letter/license except of the petitioner No. 1. There is no common cause of action stated in the petition which would permit them filing of such common petition. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. However, even if the merits of the petition are examined, then also the Court does not find any substance in the present petition. 5. It is pertinent to note that the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") has been enacted to provide in the interests of general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in certain commodities. Section 3 of the said Act empowers Central Government to control production, supply, distribution, etc. of essential commodities and to issue orders for regulating or prohibiting the supply and distribution of such essential commodities. Section 5 empowers the Central Government to delegate its powers under Section 3 to such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government, or such State Government or such officer or authority, subordinate to a State Government as may be specified in the notified order. Accordingly, the State of Rajasthan has promulgated the Control Order of 1976 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the said Act read with the Order of Government of India. Accordingly, the State of Rajasthan has promulgated the Control Order of 1976 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the said Act read with the Order of Government of India. The petitioners claiming to be the holders of authorisation for running the fair price shop issued under the said Control Order of 1976, apprehend that on account of issuance of the advertisement dated 03.03.2015, the number of ration card holders attached to their fair price shops would be reduced to less than 500 card holders and it will be difficult for them to run the fair price shop. 6. It is pertinent to note that the authorizations are issued to the persons in the prescribed manner under the Control Order of 1976 to run the fair price shop on the conditions mentioned therein. Hence, their rights and obligations are governed by the authorisation letter. One of such authorisation issued to the petitioner No. 1 is on record at Annexure-1. Though other authorisation letters are not on record, even if it is believed that similar authorisation letters have been issued to the other petitioners also, there is nothing in the said authorisation letter to suggest that the petitioners would have at least 500 card holders to run the fair price shop. There is no vested right in favour of the petitioners to have minimum 500 card holders, as sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even if it is presumed that the State Government has issued guidelines to ensure that the fair price shop should have 500 card holders, then also such guidelines would not create any legal right in favour of the petitioners. 7. It is settled legal position that guidelines or executive instructions do not confer any legally enforceable right, nor courts can formulate the policy as to how many card holders should be attached to a fair price shop. The rights and obligations to run the fair price shop being governed by the conditions contained in the authorisation letter, the petitioners could not challenge the action of the respondents in issuing advertisement which has been issued in order to maintain and control the supply and distribution of essential commodities. The rights and obligations to run the fair price shop being governed by the conditions contained in the authorisation letter, the petitioners could not challenge the action of the respondents in issuing advertisement which has been issued in order to maintain and control the supply and distribution of essential commodities. The Coordinate Bench in the Writ Petition No. 5721/2015 decided on 24.04.2015 has also observed that such matter would be within the domain of administrative decision and cannot be an issue of judicial review. 8. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any substance in the present petition. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. By this order, the stay application also stands dismissed. Writ Petition Dismissed.