Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Hari Om Meena & Anr. vs . The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 28 July, 2015
Author: Sunil Ambwani
Bench: Sunil Ambwani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
(1) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.400/2015
HARI OM MEENA & ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
WITH
(2) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.401/2015
SUNDER SINGH MEENA & ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
WITH
(3) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.406/2015
HARI LAL PRAJAPAT Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
WITH
(4) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.407/2015
BALVINDRA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
WITH
(5) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.408/2015
KHEM CHAND & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
WITH
(6) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.409/2015
ROODA RAM & ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
WITH
(7) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.410/2015
BHAGWAN SINGH & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
WITH
(8) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.411/2015
JAGDISH PRASAD & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
WITH
(9) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.412/2015
ARUN KUMAR JAIN Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
&
(10) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.419/2015
UDAI SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
REPORTABLE
DATE:28.07.2015
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUNIL AMBWANI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma and
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta, for the appellants.
Mr. V.D. Gathala, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for the respondents.
*****
1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. These intra-Court Special Appeals are directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, by which she has dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners distributing scheduled commodities under the Control Order, issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, have no vested right to insist upon that they must have at least 500 card holders, attached to them, for viability of their business of running fair price shops
3. Learned Single Judge held that there is nothing in the Control Order, or in the conditions of the authorization letter, to suggest that the petitioners would have at least 500 card holders to run the fair price shop. They have no vested right to insist that they must have minimum 500 card holders attached to their shops, for running the fair price shops. 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.
4. We find that the petitioners had not acquired any cause of action to file the writ petitions, inasmuch as the advertisement inviting offers for allotment of fair price shops, were neither finalized, nor any order was passed, by which the number of ration cards or the units attached to them were reduced. In the letter of the Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Secretary, Food, Supply and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan, dated 07.04.2010, there was a direction to carry out survey, on which new fair price shops may be established, where it is found that number of ration cards are less than 500. It was directed that the advertisement should be made so that number of cards attached to a fair price shop do not fall below 500 ration cards, or 2000 units. The direction to carry out survey for allotment of new fair price shops, in which there should be at least 500 ration cards attached to a fair price shop, did not in any way, violate the petitioners' rights, inasmuch as the object of the public distribution scheme, is to ensure fair and equitable distribution of the scheduled commodities.
5. It is apparent that the petitioners, apprehending that with the opening of new fair price shops, the ration cards attached to their shops may be reduced, rushed to the Court for obtaining relief, for which they did not acquire any cause of action.
6. Reliance has been placed on the orders passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5721/2015, decided on 24.04.2015, in which referring to Justice Wadhwa Committee's report submitted to the Supreme Court and the policy of the State Government to open new fair price shops on a minimum of 500 ration cards, the writ petition was disposed of with direction to ensure that 500 ration cards in respect of the petitioners' fair price shops are maintained.
7. The appellants have also relied on an interim order dated 03.04.2012, passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4384/2012, in which the orders passed by the District Supply Officer, dated 22.03.2012, by which a direction was issued to open up additional fair price shops, if 500 ration cards are not available in the area concerned, were stayed.
8. The reasons given by learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners do not have either contractual, or any legal right, to insist upon opening up of fair price shops with at least 500 ration cards, and resultantly not to reduce the number of ration cards attached to the petitioners shops, do not suffer from any legal error. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners do not have any vested right to insist upon at least 500 ration cards attached to their shops.
9. We may also observe that there may be various situations, in which looking to the geographical conditions and the exigency of distribution, the number of ration cards attached to a fair price shop, may either exceed or be reduced below 500, and in such case the authorized dealer would have no legal right to challenge the action.
10. In the present case, almost all the petitioners have more than 500 ration cards, attached to their shops, and thus, there was no threat to the viability of their business. It is apparent that the writ petitions, giving rise to these Special Appeals, were based only on the apprehension. There was no legal injury suffered by them to maintain the writ petitions.
11. All the Special Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
12. A copy of the judgment will be placed in the connected files.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (SUNIL AMBWANI),C.J. /KKC/ Certificate:
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
KAMLESH KUMAR P.A