Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pds Depo Sanchalak Welfare Samiti vs State Of Hp And Others on 24 November, 2023
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 7306 of 2022
Decided on : 24.11.2023
.
PDS Depo Sanchalak Welfare Samiti ....Petitioner
Versus
State of HP and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman,
Advocate.
rt
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General with M/s Rupinder Singh
and Pushpender Jaswal,
Additional Advocate Generals and
M/s Rohit Sharma and Sumit
Sharma, Deputy Advocate
Generals and Mr. Rajat Chauhan,
Law officer.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed
for quashing of Notification dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure P-3),
in terms whereof, the Food Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs
Department, in supersession of all previous orders,
instructions and guidelines issued from time to time and in
compliance to Section 12(1), 12(2)(e) and 24(5)(c) of the
National Food Security Act, 2013 and Himachal Pradesh
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Specified Essential Commodities (Regulation of Distribution)
Order, 2019, has notified new guidelines for opening of new
.
Fair Price Shops in order to provide easy access of the Fair
Price Shops to the citizens of the State.
2. The case of the petitioner is that it is running a
Fair Price Shop, which was allotted to it in terms of the
of
previous notification issued by the respondents dated
02.08.2014. As per the petitioner, it was not given any
rt
opportunity before issuance of the new notification, in terms
whereof, the population coverage of a Fair Price Shop has
been arbitrarily reduced from 1500 to 1000 and further the
notification has been issued without appreciating the fact the
same shall adversely impact the business prospects of the
petitioner's Fair Price Shop.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that
there were no complaints against the Fair Price Shop being
run by the petitioner and without any application of mind,
Notification Annexure P-3, has been issued at the back of the
petitioner. He further submitted that there is no rationale in
reducing the population strength from 1500 to 1000 and in
fact, notification dated 31.03.2021 being arbitrary and having
been issued without any due application of mind, is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, he has prayed
that the petition be allowed and impugned notification be
.
quashed set aside. No other point was urged.
4. Learned Advocate General, while defending the
Notification Annexure P-3, has submitted that same has been
issued by the Department in the larger public interest to
of
ensure that there is easy access to the residents of the State
as far as Fair Price Shops are concerned. He submitted that
rt
the decision has been taken to ensure that minimum distance
is travelled by a consumer to have access to the Fair Price
Shop and secondly, there are more Fair Price Shops
accessible to the consumers so that besides there being no
monopoly, the consumers of the Fair Price Shops can have
easy access thereto. Learned Advocate General also argued
that there is no arbitrariness in the decision of the
Department for the reason that this is a policy decision taken
by the Government in the larger public interest and petitioner
has not been able to point out any infirmity in the impugned
notification. Contention of the petitioner that notification will
have adverse effect as far as the business of the petitioner is
concerned, cannot be said to be an argument good enough so
as to hold notification dated 31.03.2021 to be bad in law.
Learned Advocate General also argued that neither the
petitioner has been deprived of its Fair Price Shop nor
.
notification requires any hearing to be given to the petitioner.
Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the present writ
petition being devoid of merit.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and
of
gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended
therewith.
6.
rt
The only grounds urged by the petitioner to
espouse that Notification dated 31.03.2021 is bad in law are:
(a) that the notification has been issued without hearing the
petitioner; (b) there is no justification in reducing the
population from 1500 to 1000 as far as opening of the Fair
Price Shop is concerned; and (c) notification will adversely
affect the business of the petitioner.
7. This Court is of the considered view that when the
petitioner itself is a beneficiary of a notification which was
previously issued by the Government in terms whereof a Fair
Price Shop was allotted to it, a change or modification thereof
does not entail any civil consequences as far as the petitioner
is concerned so as to confer upon it a right of being heard.
The new notification has neither cancelled the Fair Price Shop
allotted to the petitioner or has in any other manner created
any impediment in the business being already run by the
.
petitioner.
8. In fact, the very language used in the impugned
notification is suggestive of the fact that this policy decision
has been taken by the Department in the larger public
of
interest so as to provide easy access of the Fair Price Shops to
the residents of the State. This decision to make available a
rt
Fair Price Shop for population of 1000 and above rather than
1500, cannot be termed to be arbitrary. The rationale to have
a Fair Price Shop is to provide daily ration to the economically
weaker strata of the society at subsidized prices. In this
backdrop, if the intent behind the issuance of notification is
gauged, the same appears thoroughly bonafide because if a
person who is to purchase the goods from a Fair Price Shop
has either to stand in queue for a long time or has to traverse
long distance to get the goods, then the very purpose of
opening Fair Price Shops is defeated. Otherwise also, the plea
of adverse impact on the business of the petitioner by
issuance of impugned notification looses its significance for
the reason that larger public interest has to be given priority
as compared to the business interests of one individual entity.
This Court is of the view that business prospects of the
petitioner nowhere are hampered or impacted by the issuance
.
of the impugned notification dated 31.03.2021. The plea that
that there is no rationale behind reducing the population limit
from 1500 to 1000 can also be not accepted for the reason
that the rationale appears to be very clear and unambiguous,
of
i.e. to provide more Fair Price Shops to the residents.
Accordingly, in view of above discussion, as this
rt
Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the
same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
November 24, 2023 Judge
(narender)
