Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Tej Ram vs Zubir Ahmed & Ors on 7 February, 2024
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
Sr. No. 54
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CPOWP No. 235/2018
Tej Ram .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate vice
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
V/s
Zubir Ahmed & ors. .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, GA
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
07.02.2024
01. Proceedings in the petition have been initiated for non-
compliance of the order dated 30.01.2018 passed in OWP No.
2157/2017. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the
respondents that while opening fresh/new fair price shops, Government
Order No. 127 FCS & CA of 2016 date 04.08.2016 shall be strictly
adhered to and the ration tickets of the existing ration dealers shall not
be reduced below 250.
02. The contention of the petitioner is that he was initially
appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer in the year 1995 with 203 rationees
attached with his Fair Price Shop. The respondents have reduced the
same to 145 as per latest E-Pds report, thus, this has resulted in
violation of the judgment and order.
03. Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, learned GA appearing on behalf of the
respondents has stated that the petitioner was appointed as Fair Price
Shop Dealer in the year 1995 with 203 rationees attached with his Fair
Price Shop. In the year 1995, petitioner had never 250 rationees
attached with his Fair Price Shop and with the enforcement of National
Food Safety Act in the Jammu and Kashmir, with a view to provide
ration at the door step of the public, new ration depots were opened at
every station, so as to provide ration facility at the door step. He further
stated that the then State Government issued a Government Order No.
127-FCS & CA of 2016 dated 04.08.2016, which provides the
guidelines for issuance of fresh dealership for hilly and plain areas and
in the said Government Order, the minimum limit of 250 rationees is
flexible, as with a view to facilitate the distribution of the ration and
even depot can be opened for less than 250 rationees and on the will
and desire of the rationees, they can attach and detach with the ration
dealer as per their convenience, thus, no Ration dealer can set up the
claim for a particular number of rationees even though same may be
contrary to the desires and convenience of consumers..
04. After implementation of National Food Safety Act, with the
opening of two new Fair Price Shops by Babli Devi and Partap Vir
whose dealership was not quashed in the writ petition, the number of
rationees reduced to 145 as per latest E-Pds report as per information
uploaded on Electronic Distribution System of District Rajouri. He also
state that with a view to implement the judgment of this Court in
rightness, the Tehsil Supply Officer, Kalakote on 20.11.2021 issued a
public notice to the local consumers and affixed the same at
conspicuous public place in the locality, besides Fair Price Dealership
to ascertain, if any consumer is interested to get his ration from Sh. Tej
Ram so as to increase his number to 250. He vehemently argued that
this direction would not be applicable to the petitioner as he was already
holding a license of Fair Price Shop whereas a direction was issued with
regard to opening of new Fair Price Shop in terms of Government Order
No. 127 FCS & CA of 2016 date 04.08.2016. The respondents despite
the same had issued a notice to the local consumers and affixed the
same at conspicuous public place in the locality for the rationees, if any,
who wanted to get his rations from the petitioner but no one has come
forward.
05. The direction though earned by the petitioner in the writ
petition was only with regard to maintaining the ration tickets of the
existing Ration Dealers for only with regard to fresh and new fair price
shop. The petitioner was already running the Fair Price Shop and thus,
the same was not applicable to him. This apart, the Government Order
itself provides for increasing or decreasing of the number of shops in
accordance with the area.
06. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am
satisfied as there is no violation of the order of this Court, as such,
nothing survives for further consideration in this contempt petition.
Accordingly, the proceedings in this contempt petition are closed.
(Sindhu Sharma)
Judge
JAMMU
Ram Murti/PS
07.02.2024
