Raman Mandir Prathamik Upbhokta ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 648 Chatt

                                   1

                                                                    NAFR
        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        WPC No. 3186 of 2022

1. Sangita Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, Raipur Through - Its President
   Farhana Begum W/o Rashid Khan, Aged About 30 Years, Tatibandh,
   Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                            ---- Petitioner
                                Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and
   Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur
   (C.G.)
2. Special Secretary Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection
   Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Collector Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
4. The Registrar Co-Operative Societies Raipur (C.G.)
                                                        ---- Respondents

WPC No. 3334 of 2022

1. Raman Mandir Prathamik Upbhokta Bhandar, Raipur Through - Its President Naresh Dingre S/o Late Khetpal , Aged About 41 Years, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Special Secretary Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar , Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. The Registrar Co-Operative Societies Raipur Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents WPC No. 3684 of 2022

1. Dudhadhari Mahila Prathmik Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit Raipur Raipur, Through - Its President Smt. Sarita Verma W/o Shri Yogendra Verma Aged About 56 Years, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Special Secretary, Food, Civil, Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents WPC No. 3466 of 2022

1. Gajanand Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Raipur Through Its President Radhe S/o Ganeshram, Aged About 28 Years, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Special Secretary Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. The Registrar Co-Operative Societies Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate For State : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Addl. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 01.02.2023

1. Since the impugned order under challenge in the bunch of writ

petitions being same, the ground of challenge also being same and

the relief sought for also being identical, these writ petitions are being

taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by a

common order.

2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are operators of fair price shop

in different districts in the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners are

operating mostly as independent Societies. The petitioners have been

operating fair price shops for well over a decade now. The petitioners

when they were allotted the fair price shop, it was the Chhattisgarh

Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 which was in force

and in few of the cases it was the earlier Control Order of 2001 which

was in force. The petitioners have been operating the fair price shop

uninterruptedly for all these periods. The Govt. of Chhattisgarh vide

notification dated 23.01.2017 had notified a new control order for the

public distribution system within the State of Chhattisgarh known as

the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order of 2016.

3. Down the line, in order to streamline and smoothen the public

distribution system, the Govt. took another policy decision vide

circular dated 22.06.2020. Thereby the policy for rationalization of the

fair price shops was further streamlined by issuing certain additional

guidelines in addition to the guidelines already available under the

Control Order of 2016. One of the guidelines framed as a policy

decision which seems to be the common grievance of all the

petitioners herein is Clause 1.2 of the said circular dated 22.06.2020

which for ready reference is being reproduced hereinunder:

"1.2) uxjh; {ks=ksa esa lkekU;r% okMZ dks nqdku vkcaVu

gsrq bdkbZ ekudj izR;sd okMZ ds fy, U;wure 01 mfpr

ewY; nqdku lapkfyr dh tkosa ysfdu ;g /;ku j[kk tkos

fd uxjh; {ks= dh izR;sd nqdku es U;wure 500

jk'kudkMZ vo'; layXu gksus pkfg,] rkfd nqdkuks dk

lapkyu vkfFkZd #i ls ykHkiznk;d cuk jgsA"

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid policy decision the District Collectors of

various districts in the State of CG issued instructions to the

authorities concerned ensuring that the policy decision dated

22.06.2020 is implemented at the earliest so as to smoothen and

streamline the public distribution system in the State which again is

an additional challenge in some of the writ petitions.

5. Some of the grounds that have been raised for assailing the said

policy decision of the Govt. are that:

i) As a consequence of the reduction in the total number of ration

cards that a petitioner Society has as on date, it may be economically

unviable for the petitioner to operate the fair price shop.

ii) It may lead to retrenchment of many of the workforce which has

been engaged by the petitioners' establishment for running of the

existing fair price shops.

iii) It may be substantially reducing the profit margin of each of the

fair price shops.

iv) The Control Order of 2016 particularly Clause-8 does not fix the

minimum number of ration cards that a fair price shop should have.

Thereby it should be presumed that there will be no upper limit for a

fair price shop to have the number of ration cards.

v) That the allotment being made under the Control Order of 2004 or

even the Control Order of 2001, the limit then was never 500 and

therefore so far as the petitioners are concerned, the control order of

2016 would not be applicable and it is the control order of 2004 or the

earlier Control Order which would be applicable.

6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the petitions

submits that the very purpose for introducing the policy decision dated

22.06.2020 was to ensure that the public at large is not made to suffer

or face hardship in the course of receiving food grains under the

public distribution system. He submits that the policy decision is

rather for the larger public convenience. Since it is a policy decision

for the public convenience, there is hardly any scope of judicial review

for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. State

counsel further submits that it is not a case where the fair price shops

allotted to the petitioners are being cancelled by the State rather it is

only with an intention of regulating the public distribution system

within the State and rationalising the fair price shops being operated

within the State which has led to the introduction of the policy dated

22.06.2020. Thus, the same cannot be said to be either bad in law

or contrary to any existing law nor can it be said to be arbitrary or with

malafied intentions.

7. Learned State counsel drew the attention of the Court to the chart

available in the writ petition which would show that there were certain

fair price shops which have a large number of ration cards and with

which it was not practically possible for the fair price shop owners to

smoothly and timely make available foodgrains to all the ration card

holders. The public at large also was facing great difficulties in timely

receiving foodgrains. That it was in this context the Govt thought of

rationalizing the system and have now taken a policy decision to

ensure that the number of fair price shops be increased, however,

ensuring a minimum of 500 ration cards for a fair price shop. State

counsel therefore submits that the writ petitions be not entertained

and the same be rejected.

8. As regards the ground raised by Shri A. S. Rajput that the Control

Order of 2016 is not applicable, this Court is of the opinion that the

said ground raised by the counsel for petitioners would not be

sustainable for the reason that the Control Order of 2016 is not under

challenge in any of the writ petitions. Secondly, the notification by

which the Control Order of 2016 was published itself clearly stipulates

that the said notification has been issued superseding the earlier

Control Order of 2004 which means that upon supersession of the

Control Order of 2004, it is the Control Order of 2016 which stands

replaced and being in force. The petitioners at no point of time had

ever objected to the enforcement of the Control Order of 2016.

9. The fair price shops operated under the public distribution system

were never with an intention of the profit making of the operators of

the fair price shops though of course the economic viability of the said

fair price shops was always borne in mind while policy decisions were

taken. On the other hand, these fair price shops have been allotted

and operated with a sole intention and object of ensuring that the

foodgrains distributed under the public distribution system reaches to

the common citizens both in rural as also in urban areas in the most

convenient manner without there being any hassle, hindrance & delay

for the general public in receiving the same. With the steady increase

in population in each village and each city the number of ration card

holders gets increased from time to time. Hence, it becomes difficult

for one fair price shop owner to manage providing foodgrains to the

general public when there are large number of ration cards attached

to one fair price shop. It is with this intention and object that the Govt.

decided to have more and more of fair price shops throughout the

length and breadth of the State of Chhattisgarh. In the process, the

policy decision was introduced framing certain additional guidelines to

the guidelines already available under the Control Order of 2016. One

such guideline which is under challenge in these bunch of writ

petitions is to ensure that the number of fair price shop be increased

with minimum 500 ration cards per fair price shop taking into

consideration the economic viability of the said fair price shop also.

10. There are cases where the distance of a card holder to a fair price

shop is quite far. There are cases where the population at a particular

locality also is far more than the population at the place where the fair

price shop presently is in existence. There could also be a case

where as a result of the political decisions taken by the Govt. the

number of Gram Panchayats may have got increased and many of

the existing villages must have been bifurcated into many Gram

Panchayats. There could be a situation where many Gram

Panchayats also may not have even one fair price shop. Under the

policy it has been ensured that for the purpose of opening a fair price

shop, one Gram Panchayat should be considered as one unit. These

are all policy decisions framed by the State Govt. for the convenience

of general public at large. It is the policy makers alone who are the

best judge for deciding the criteria, conditions/guidelines for the said

purpose keeping in mind the object and intention of the public

distribution system in the State.

11. The judgment referred to and relied by Shri Patankar in the case of

D.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. The District Collector, Kadapa District and two

others. The District Collector, Kadappa District WP. No. 7127 of 2012

decided on 10.06.2015 was a case where in the course of

rationalization and bifurcation, the petitioner's fair price shop was left

with only 119 ration card holders. The economic viability of the said

shop being the big matter of concern forced the petitioner to approach

the Court unlike in the present case where it is the policy decision of

the Govt. itself that they shall ensure that every fair price shop holder

would have at least 500 ration cards. This in other words means it

could also be a situation where a few of the fair price shops may have

more than 500 ration cards as well. The Govt. does not intend to

restrict it at 500 as such. It would all depend upon the authorities who

would be determining as to how many fair price shops have to be

opened in a particular locality or at a particular place. All of which is

exclusively within the domain of the State authorities in terms of

Clause 8 of the Control Order both the Control Order of 2016 as also

the Control Order of 2004.

12. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the decision of the

Rajasthan High Court in the case of Prahlad Bairwa & another Vs.

State of Rajasthan and others in Writ Petition No.11130 of 2013

decided on 03.07.2013 where in paragraphs 2 to 6 it has been held

as under:

2) Mr. Gupta has further submitted that the purport of the recommendation of Justice Wadhwa Committee constituted on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the intent of the aforementioned judgment of this Court is that a minimum 500 ration cards should be attached to each fair price shop for reasons of economic viability of fair price shops. He submits that from the view point of economic viability, the number of ration card per fair price shop by itself would not suffice and the commission payable to fair price shops' dealers in respect of distribution of different essential commodities is also a relevant factor.

Counsel submits that the commission for the distribution of various essential

commodities from fair price shops has been stagnant for over fifteen years. He submits that this aspect of the matter also needs to be looked in for the purpose of evaluating the economic viability of the fair price shops.

3) Mr. K. Verma, Addl.G.C. appearing for respondents, admits to the recommendation of Justice Wadhwa Committee's report being that each fair price shop should have a minimum 500 ration cards to ensure its viability. He further admits to the fact that the order of this Court in SBCWP No.4384/2012 decided on 18.09.2012 has not been challenged in appeal and has been implemented. Therefore, he has no objection to similar order being passed in the present petition.

4) Having heard the counsel for the petitioners, in my considered view, the issue of commission payable to the dealers of fair price shops is fundamentally a matter of contract between the State Government and the dealers. The commission would have a bearing on the final costs of the various essential commodities. This aspect of the matter therefore is more within the domain of administrative decision making and cannot at least in the first instance be an issue of judicial review.

5)    Consequently,            I   would       direct   the
petitioners        to      make            a      detailed
representation in this regard to the State
Government in the Department of Food and
on     the        submission          of       the      said


                         representation,          in     the     context       of     the
                         necessity        of     fair        price     shops        being
                         economically viable, the State Government
                         in the Department of Food shall decide the
                         same within a period of ten weeks of its
                         receipt.
                         6) The respondents are however directed to
                         ensure that 500 ration cards in respect of
                         the   petitioners'           fair     price    shops         are
                         maintained.            For      this        purpose,         the
                         respondent            No.3,     if     necessary,          shall

restructure to the extent necessary, the fair price shops in the concerned Tehsil/Gram Panchayat."

13. The view of Rajasthan High Court is clear that the policy decision is in

fact an administrative decision for the betterment of the general public

at large. Further that there could be hardly any scope of judicial

review for such administrative decisions taken for the public

convenience and general public at large. However, the Hon'ble High

Court of Rajasthan has ensured that the Govt. should adhere to the

fact that for the operation of fair price shops at least one fair price

shop should have a minimum of 500 ration cards.

14. The policy under challenge in the instant case particularly Clause 1.2

which is reproduced in preceding paragraphs of this judgment clearly

indicates that in fact the State of Chhattisgarh also intends to have

the minimum of 500 ration cards per fair price shop which in other

words means that the Govt. does not intend to firstly cancel the

allotment made to the petitioners and secondly the Govt. does not

intend to bring the total number of ration cards per fair price shop less

than 500.

15. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any strong case

made out by the petitioners calling for an interference with the

impugned orders under challenge in these writ petitions particularly

the policy decision dated 22.06.2020 and the consequential orders

passed by the respective district Collectors thereupon.

16. Nonetheless in the event the petitioners have a grievance so far as

the economic viability part is concerned as has been directed by the

Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, the right of petitioners would stand

protected and reserved for approaching the respondent authorities by

way of a detailed representation giving justification and explanation

so far as the economic viability part is concerned which the

respondent authorities are expected to consider and take an

appropriate decision.

17. It is made clear that if the State Govt. at any point of time intends or

the respondent district authorities intend to open more than one fair

price shop or additional fair price shop than what is existing today,

the authorities would ensure that the distribution as far as possible

shall be made uniformly adhering to the guidelines framed vide policy

decision dated 22.06.2020.

18. In view of the aforesaid observations and the liberty given to the

petitioners, the writ petitions as of now stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(P.Sam Koshy) Judge inder