Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 25 August, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010029712021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1222/2021
BOLORAM DAS AND 8 ORS
S/O- LT. DEBESH CH. DAS, R/O- TALOWA GAON, P.O. SRINAGAR, DIST.-
DHUBRI, ASSAM
2: ABDUL SALAM MONDAL
S/O- LT. HASEN ALI MONDAL
R/O- KAIMATI
P.O. CHOTOGUMA
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
3: SANKAR PANDIT
S/O- LT. MONTU PANDIT
R/O- VILL AND P.O. CHOTOGUMA
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
4: WAZIL ISLAM
S/O- LT. JONAB ALI SK
R/O- POKALAGI PART-II
P.O. KAMANDANGA
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
5: MOTIAR RAHMAN MONDAL
S/O- JOYNAL ABEDIN
R/O- KAIMATI (CHOTTOGUMA)
P.O. CHOTTOGUMA
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
6: TAHER ALI SK.
S/O- ANARUDDIN SK.
R/O- BHERBHERI
Page No.# 2/5
P.O. BARJAN
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
7: BANDANA SAHA
W/O- SUBHASH CH. SAHA
R/O- NATABARI PART-I
P.O. AND P.S. TAMARHAT
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
8: DHANESH BHAKAT
S/O- DHARNA NARAYAN BHAKAT
R/O- MESPARA
P.O. BARJAN
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
9: FOZLUL HOQUE
S/O- ABDUS SALAM SK.
R/O- KAMANDANGA KUTI
P.O. KAMANDANGA
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOOD AND
CIVIL SUPPLIER DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06
2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI P.O. AND DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783301
3:THE DY. DIRECTOR
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY
DHUBRI
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783301
4:THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR
FOOD
CIVIL SUPPLIER AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
GOSSAIGAON
Page No.# 3/5
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 78336
For the petitioner (s) : None appears
For the respondent (s) : Mr. N. Goswami, Govt. Advocate
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
25.08.2023
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a
direction upon the respondent Nos.3 & 4 not to issue any licence for
operating new fair price shops by curtailing the existing customers of the
petitioners' fair price shops in terms with the order passed by this Court
dated 13.09.2013 passed in WP(C) No.5312/2013 as well as for a direction
upon the respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation dated
02.08.2020 and to comply with the communication dated 09.11.1998
before issuing any licence for fair price shops in the operational area of
the petitioners.
2. This Court, taking into account the relief sought for, finds it relevant
to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarkari Sasta
Anaj Vikreta Sangh, Tahsil Bemetra and Others vs. the State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others, reported in (1981) 4 SCC 471. In the said judgment,
the Supreme Court observes that fundamental rights of traders like the
petitioners therein who were carrying on the business in foodstuffs was in
no way affected. It was observed that the petitioners therein could carry
on trade in foodstuffs without hindrance as dealers, only they could not
Page No.# 4/5
run fair price shops as agents of the Government. It was observed that no
one could claim a right to run a fair price shop as an agent of the
Government and all that persons could claim was a right to be considered
to be appointed as an agent of the Government to run a fair price shop.
Paragraph No.11 of the said judgment, being relevant, is reproduced
herein under:-
"11. Earlier, we have referred to the abuses which had grown up in the
prevailing system of distribution of foodstuffs under the Madhya Pradesh
Foodstuffs (Distribution) Control Order, 1960. The system had deteriorated and
become completely unworkable and rotten to a breaking point. An absolute and
thorough overhaul of the system had become compulsive if the population of
Madhya Pradesh were to receive a regular supply of their rations. It was in
those circumstances that the Government came to the conclusion that
distribution of foodstuffs through cooperative societies (consumers' cooperative
societies), would be the best method of distribution by which the goods could
be delivered i.e. rations could be supplied to the consumers. No one can doubt
the positive and progressive role which cooperative societies are expected to
and do play in the economy of our country and, most surely, in the fair and
effective distribution of essential articles of food. There certainly was a
reasonable classification and a nexus with the object intended to be achieved,
which was a fair and assured supply of rations to the consumer. The
fundamental right of traders like the petitioners to carry on business in
foodstuffs was in no way affected. They could carry on trade in foodstuffs
without hindrance as dealers; only, they could not run fair price shops as agents
of the Government. No one could claim a right to run a fair price shop as an
agent of the Government. All that he could claim was a right to be considered
to be appointed as an agent of the Government to run a fair price shop. If the
Government took a policy decision to prefer cooperative societies for
appointment as their agents to run fair price shops, in the light of the
frustrating and unfortunate experience gathered in the last two decades, we do
Page No.# 5/5
not see how we can possibly hold that there was any discrimination."
3. Taking into account the observations so made by the Supreme Court
as quoted herein above, it is the opinion of this Court that the petitioners
have a right to carry on the business of fair price shops on the basis of the
licences so issued. The issuance of the further licences by the respondent
Department would depend upon the administrative exigency as well as the
National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Rules framed therein under.
4. Under such circumstances, the issuance of a writ as has been sought
for by the petitioners would not be in the interest of the administrative
exigency, and more so, in view of the mandate of the National Food
Security Act, 2013 and the Rules framed therein under.
5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit for which
the same stands dismissed.
6. It is made clear that the respondent authorities before issuance of
any licence shall take note of the viability of the petitioners' fair price
shops.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
