Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 724 (ALL)

MAN SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-03-08

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner is a fair price shop agent of Village Bhakroli, Block Gunnaur, District Sambhal. He is aggrieved with the establishment of the second fair price shop in the said village. Consequently, he has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3 for allotting the second fair price shop to the respondent No. 5. He has also sought in the writ an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to stop the supply of the essential commodities. 3. The petitioner has no legal right to oppose the opening of another fair price shop for the village in question which ultimately shall facilitate better distribution of essential commodities. An existing fair price shop agent has no right to object to the establishment of additional fair price shop inasmuch as a person engaged in particular trade or business fundamentally does not have right to oppose the establishment of a competing business unless it falls out within some statutory prohibition. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India does not confer a right on a person to carry on a trade or business without competition. The coming into existence of a competitor in business may result in the trade or business of the existing fair price shop agent being adversely affected to some extent. This however, does not result in infringement of right or locus standi in favour of the existing fair price shop agent to challenge the establishment of second fair price shop in view of the fact that no legal right vested in him stands infringed. That apart, the petitioner is merely an agent who has been appointed for distribution of essential commodities to needy and poor class of the society. The whole idea behind public distribution system is to benefit the poor and needy persons by proper distribution of essential commodities to them. Therefore, the interest of this class of persons, is of paramount importance. That apart, the petitioner is merely an agent who has been appointed for distribution of essential commodities to needy and poor class of the society. The whole idea behind public distribution system is to benefit the poor and needy persons by proper distribution of essential commodities to them. Therefore, the interest of this class of persons, is of paramount importance. If public interest mandates establishment of an additional fair price shop for better distribution of essential commodities to card holders then a fair price shop agent, who is merely extended hand of the principal i.e. Government; has no locus standi to oppose the establishment of an additional fair price shop. His interest is a private interest while establishment of another fair price shop is in public interest. Therefore, the private interest of the petitioner existing fair price shop agent cannot supersede public interest. 4. In Special Appeal No. 516 of 2016 (Suman Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 23.8.2016, a Division Bench of this Court considered the relevant Government Orders regarding establishment of additional fair price shop and held as under : “Additionally, we find upon a plain reading of the clause on which much reliance was placed, is really not a prohibition for the establishment of an additional fair price shop. As is evident from the plain terms of the said clause all that it makes provision for is to the effect that in those Gram Sabhas where units be more than 4000, in such cases and upon the Gram Sabha being of the opinion that the opening of an additional shop would be necessitated for the convenience of the villagers, a proposal may be processed for the establishment of an additional fair price shop. On a plain reading of the said provision, we are of the view that the same is merely an enabling provision and is not liable to be viewed as a prohibition against the establishment of an additional fair price shop where public interest so mandates. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the learned Single Judge.” 5. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.