Mohammad Ashraf Wani And Others vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1875 J&K/2

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Mohammad Ashraf Wani And Others vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 30 October, 2025

Author: Rajnesh Oswal

Bench: Rajnesh Oswal

                                                                         2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB
        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                       AT SRINAGAR
                                                Reserved on 08.10.2025
                                             Pronounced on 30.10.2025
                                               Uploaded on 30.10.2025


CJ Court

WP(C) No. 2105/2025 (O&M)
c/w
CCP(S) No. 191/2023
WP(C) No. 489/2023
WP(C) No. 333/2023
CCP(S) No. 375/2023
WP(C) No. 501/2023
WP(C) No. 633/2023
WP(C) No. 759/2023
 WP(C) No. 795/2023
WP(C) No. 975/2023
WP(C) No. 987/2023
 WP(C) No. 1672/2023
WP(C) No. 1844/2023
WP(C) No. 1882/2023
WP(C) No. 1898/2023
WP(C) No. 1904/2023
WP(C) No. 1984/2023
WP(C) No. 1999/2023
WP(C) No. 2055/2023
WP(C) No. 2097/2023
WP(C) No. 2100/2023
WP(C) No. 2161/2023
WP(C) No. 2193/2023
WP(C) No. 2439/2023
WP(C) No. 2987/2023
WP(C) No. 2464/2025
Mohammad Ashraf Wani and others       ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

                 Through: Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Adv.
                          Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani, Adv.
                          Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq, Adv.
                          Mr. Raja Rameez, Adv.
                          Mr. Mohd. Rafiq Bhat, Adv.
                          Mr. Altamash Rashid, Adv.
                          Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, Adv.
                          Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, Adv.
                          Mr. Aashiq Hussain, Adv.
                          Mr. T. A. Lone, Adv.
                                            2


                                                                                  2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB
                                                               WP(C) No. 2105/2025
                                                               a/w connected matters

                                    v/s
Union Territory of J&K and others                       .... Respondent(s)

Through:                           Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy.AG


CORAM:       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.

                                 JUDGMENT

PER OSWAL. J

1. In view of the identical issues involved in these writ petitions, they were

heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the fair price shop dealers, who

have been allotted fair price shops primarily in terms of Government of

J&K's order No.127-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 04.08.2016 and number of

other petitioners have been allotted the fair price shops under the various

other orders issued from time to time.

3. As a matter of fact, to maintain supplies and secure availability and

distribution of essential commodities, namely food grains under the

Targeted Public Distribution System, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs,

Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, in exercise of the

powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955,

issued and published G.S.R. 213(E) dated 20.03.2015 nomenclated as

Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (for short

'the order of 2015'), in supersession of Public Distribution System

(Control) Order, 2001.Thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred by

section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with Clause 9 of

2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB

a/w connected matters

the Order of 2015, the Commissioner/Secretary to the Government,

Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Civil

Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar i.e. respondent No. 1 issued an S. O. 41

dated 19.01.2023 (for short 'the SO 41') thereby superseding all

previous orders issued in that behalf.

4. All the petitioners are aggrieved of S.O. 41 dated 19.01.2023 and as such,

have filed these petitions for quashing of the same on the grounds that it

has the effect of reducing their business and renewal fee of ₹1,000/- after

every five years cannot be imposed on the petitioners. The grievance of

the petitioners is also that SO 41 prescribes maximum age of a fair price

shop dealer as 65 years, whereas no such restriction in respect of the age

was earlier provided in any of the orders in respect of the allotment of

fair price shops. The petitioners have mainly banked upon the order dated

127-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 04.08.2016 to assail SO 41 on the premise

that it has the propensity to reduce the ration tickets to 1,500 souls or 200

families in rural areas and not more than 2,000 souls or less than 300

families in urban areas, whereas in terms order No. 127-FCS&CA of

2016 dated 04.08.2016, the minimum ration tickets were fixed as 250

with upper limit of 499 ration tickets. It is also contended by the

petitioners that SO 41 could not have been applied retrospectively as the

petitioners have been deprived of their vested rights to have assured

number of ration tickets in terms of earlier order(s) issued from time to

time, wherein no such provisions for reduction of number of ration

tickets and age of fair shops dealers were provided by the respondents.

2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB

a/w connected matters

The petitioners have also relied upon the doctrines of 'legitimate

expectation' and 'promissory estoppel' to assail SO 41 by submitting that

in view of the orders issued earlier, the petitioners were assured about the

number of ration tickets for the purpose of running the fair price shops to

earn their livelihood and by acting upon the assurance of the official

respondents, the petitioners have altered their positions and at this stage,

the petitioners cannot even join the Government service because of being

over age, therefore, the SO 41 impugned has the effect of snatching the

livelihood from the petitioners, as otherwise also the petitioners are

earning meager commission from the sale of food grains. It is also

contended that in terms of earlier orders issued under Public Distribution

System (Control) Order, 2001, the petitioners had a determined area of

1.5 kms to 2 kms issued by the respondents only and now the respondents

cannot be permitted to make a departure from the promise made to the

petitioners. It is also contended by the petitioners that Clause 22(4) of the

impugned SO 41 is coercive in nature and once the petitioners have been

appointed as dealers prior to the issuance of SO 41, they cannot be forced

to deposit ₹1,000/- as license fee for issuance of license in terms of SO

41 dated 19.01.2023.

5. The respondents have objected to the maintainability of these writ

petitions on the ground that neither the National Food Security Act, 2013

nor the Order of 2015 has been assailed by the petitioners.They have also

stated that pursuant to section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

vide GSR-630 (E) dated August, 2001, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs,

2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB

a/w connected matters

Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public

Distribution had issued an order under the name and style of "Public

Distribution System (Control) Order 2001" for the purpose of

maintaining supplies and distribution of the essential commodities under

PDS. The Department of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,

J&K pursuant to the said order issued certain guidelines in respect of

opening of fair price shops on commission basis but the guidelines were

not comprehensive. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public

Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government

of India enacted a law under the name and style of "The National Food

Security Act, 2013 (NFSA)" in order to provide food and nutritional

security to human life, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality

food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity. It is further

stated that the erstwhile State Cabinet vide its decision dated 02.12.2015

conveyed approval for implementation of the National Food Security

Act, 2013 in the erstwhile State of J&K w.e.f. 01.02.2016. Under the Act,

State/UTs are responsible for effective implementation of the Act which

inter alia includes identification of eligible households, issuing ration

cards to them, distribution of food grains to eligible households through

fair price shops (FPS), issuance of licenses to fair price shop dealers and

their monitoring, end to end computerization and necessary strengthening

of Targeted Public Distribution System. The Central Government vide

GSR-649 (E) dated 21.08.2015 had notified an order commonly known

as "The Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2015" in

2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB

a/w connected matters

terms of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and in consonance with the

National Food Security Act, 2013 by virtue of which the Public

Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 was repealed. As such,

whatever orders were issued by the Central or the State Government in

respect of distributions of PDS items, prior to the Order of 2015 also

stood repealed. It is the further stand of the respondents that the

Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, J&K, in terms

of Clause 9 of order of 2015 through the medium of Government Order

No. 127-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 04.08.2016 read with Government

Order No. 147-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 06.09.2016 read with

Government Order No. 352-FCS&CA of 2017 dated 24.08.2017 and the

Government Order No. 70-FCS&CA of 2018 dated 12.03.2018, issued

certain guidelines for opening of new fair price shops for maintaining the

supplies and distribution thereof, to the entitled beneficiaries in light of

the National Food Security Act, 2013. The guidelines issued vide the

above said Government Orders from time to time, were to be framed

under Clause 9 of the Order of 2015 by issuing a notification in the

Government Gazette as was done by all other States, but instead, the

Department issued guidelines in the shape of Government orders, which

were found to be inadequate and having numerous deficiencies/lacunas.

Resultantly, the Department was confronted with number of litigations on

the subject, because the said guidelines on various subjects viz. mode and

manner of inviting applications for grant of license, eligibility criteria for

license, period for issuance of license and appeal etc., were either silent

2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB

a/w connected matters

or the provisions were ambiguous in nature and not so comprehensive. It

is further stated that various States/UTs have taken such reformative

steps by issuing control order immediately after implementation of Order

of 2015, but in Jammu and Kashmir, it was not done. It is further averred

that a decision was taken by the Government to replace the existing

policy purely in the interest of bringing better policy norms for regulating

the PDS in the UT of Jammu and Kashmir, and it was in fact one of the

requirements under the Order of 2015 issued by the Government of India.

As a matter of fact, Public Distribution System is a major State

intervention to ensure the food security of the people, especially the poor.

The Public Distribution System operates through a large distribution

network of fair price shops and is supplemental in nature. Under the

Public Distribution System, the Central Government is responsible for

procuring and transporting the food grains up to the principal distribution

centers of the Food Corporation of India, whereas the State Governments

are responsible for the identification of the families living below the

poverty line, the issuance of ration cards, and the distribution of food

grains to the vulnerable sections of the society through the FPS. The

respondents are in fact performing the duty in the true spirit of Article 47

read with Article 39-A of the Constitution of India. In UT of Jammu and

Kashmir, the targeted population for the supply of food grains under the

National Food Security Act, 2013 is around 97,05,309 as per latest portal

figures and for a population of this dimension residing in rural/urban

areas, the Government is obliged to evolve a foolproof mechanism

2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB

a/w connected matters

ensuring distribution of food grains as per the policy of the Central

Government. It is averred by the respondents that no person can claim

monopoly over any work to the exclusion of the others. Under the new

policy, fair price shops are to be opened within 1.5 to 2 kms radius to

cater the needs of the rationees and every fair price shop would cater not

more than 1,500 souls and less than 200 ration cards in rural areas and

not more than 2,000 souls and less than 300 ration cards in urban areas

and this would ensure that no impediment or inconvenience is caused to

the public and the fair price shops functions smoothly. The respondents

have mentioned the details of the new policy of distribution as contained

in Order of 2015 to assert that the same was framed and the relevant

Control Orders were issued, to ensure the proper supply of the food

grains to the vulnerable sections of the society and to secure its

availability to raise the level of nutrition of the ordinary citizens of the

country. It is further averred by the respondents that in order to ensure

sustainability of fair price shops, they have made many financial

interventions i.e. (i) release of the central portion/share of commission in

advance under National Food Security Act w.e.f. April 2022 on monthly

basis out of Department's revolving fund, pending its release by the

Government of India, (ii) enhancement of their commission from Rs.143

per quintal to Rs.180 per quintal w.e.f. April, 2022 under the National

Food Security Act and (iii) enhancement of their commission from

Rs.143 per quintal to Rs.180 per quintal w.e.f. April 2023 under all

schemes. The Government is also examining a proposal to consider

2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB

a/w connected matters

allowing sale of commodities other than the food grains and scheduled

commodities distributed under the Targeted Public Distribution System at

the fair price shop to further improve the viability of the fair price shop

operations. Both the Directorates of the Department vide letter dated

07.06.2023 have been requested by the respondents to suggest non-PDS

commodities for considering their distribution/selling by the fair price

shop dealers. It is further stated that in terms of policy order No. 127-

FCS&CA of 2016 dated 04.08.2016, the matter of selection of fair price

shop dealers was not in accordance with section 12 of the National Food

Safety Act, 2013 as well as Clause 9 of the Order of 2015. The said order

somewhat used to run against the spirit of competitiveness and was

ousting the participatory rights of the eligible local villagers and thus was

susceptible to defeat the objects of the Public Distribution System.

Therefore, to bring complete fairness and transparency in the process of

selection of fair price shop dealers, a proper criterion has been defined in

Clause 17 of this order for the purpose of selection of the fair price shop

dealer. So far as laying down the age of 65 years for retaining the

dealership is concerned, the age is quite reasonable as the people in all

the professions tend to avoid work at this stage of life, and in case of fair

price shop dealers, it also involves physical labour. However, upon

attaining this age, they can get their license transferred to their eligible

dependent family member, which should be seen as a big concession to

secure and protect the interest of the fair price shops. So far as refixing of

numbers of ration cards and souls in the Control Order is concerned, it is

2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB

a/w connected matters

stated that each fair price shop has been assigned a reasonable number of

beneficiaries as per new policy keeping in view the financial aspects of

their working and requirements of the department. There is persistent

demand of the public to increase the number of sale centers to their

convenience as far as possible. In fact, maximum demands received by

the Department during visits of the dignitaries or during public outreach

programmes of the Government pertain to increase the number of sale

centers and make these commodities available to people, as near as

possible to their residences. The wishes of the fair price shop dealers,

who want to retain maximum ration cards attached to them and earn

bigger commission run contrary to the persistent public demand. Further,

some disparity in maximum number of beneficiaries has been allowed in

urban and rural centers, keeping in view the greater density of population

in urban areas as compared to lesser density in rural areas. The business

running charges are relatively higher in urban areas as compared to rural

areas. The assertion of the petitioners against prescribing the renewal fee

has been replied by the respondents by stating that this is completely

unfounded and illogical as there is always a renewal fee for renewal of a

license or service being provided. In the present case, a renewal fee of

₹1,000 has been prescribed and renewal is to be sought after every 5

years, meaning thereby that the financial implications for renewal are just

Rs. 200/- per year and this is merely equivalent to a commission on

distribution of just 112 kgs of food grains. Further, it is stated that the

public distribution system was introduced for the benefit of ordinary

2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB

a/w connected matters

citizens i.e. for the benefits of card holders belonging to poor strata of the

society and it is not meant to create an opportunity for a continuous

source of livelihood for the licensees and giving a license for a fair price

shop, is a privilege conferred by the State on a person, therefore, the

petitioners are required to run the fair price shop in accordance with the

terms and conditions of the license and provisions of the Order of 2015

issued in this respect by the Government. The respondents have further

urged that issuance of SO 41 dated 19.01.2023 is an outcome of the

policy decision and the petitioners cannot challenge the policy decision

of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel representing the petitioners in the instant writ petitions

have mainly confined their challenge to SO 41 only to the extent of

reducing the ration tickets attached with the fair price shop and the

provision prescribing renewal fee after every five years. They have

vehemently argued that SO 41 could not have been applied

retrospectively, as SO 41 has an adverse effect on their livelihood. They

laid much stress that acting on the promise made by the respondents in

respect of the ration tickets attached with the fair price shops, the

petitioners have disabled themselves from obtaining any Government

employment and as such, when they have become overaged, the

respondents cannot resile from the promise made and further that the

petitioners had legitimate expectation that the respondents would

continue to maintain the status of the petitioners in respect of the terms

and conditions under which the fair price shops were allotted to them.

2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB

a/w connected matters

Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed

in a writ petition, titled as, Manzoor Ahmed Dar vs. State of J&K and

others decided on 30.11.2018

7. Per contra, Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, learned G.A representing the

respondents, has vehemently argued that SO 41 dated 19.01.2023 is an

outcome of a policy decision and has been issued in terms of the

provisions contained in the Essential Commodities Act, read with Order

of 2015 and the National Food Security Act, 2013. The object of SO 41 is

in tune with the Order of 2015 which is to ensure the maintenance of

supplies and securing the availability and distribution of food grains

under the Order of 2015 and it was the main object of the allotment of

fair price shops. 'Fair price shop' as a source of employment to

unemployed youth was only incidental object to the main object of Order

of 2015. He has laid much stress that SO 41 has been issued in public

interest and as such, the doctrines of 'legitimate expectation' and

'promissory estoppel' cannot come in the way of protecting the public

interest. He has further submitted that the petitioners have no

fundamental right to have a particular number of ration tickets. He has

relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in 'Meena Devi

vs. State of Utter Pradesh and others' bearing Writ C No. 58035, date

of decision dated 30.07.2018 and the judgment of learned Single Judge in

case titledCh. Makhan vs State of J&K and others.

8. Heard and perused the record.

2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB

a/w connected matters

9. Before we proceed to take up the specific challenge thrown by the

petitioners to the various provisions of SO 41 dated 19.01.2023, we deem

it proper to examine the scope of interference with the administrative

decisions as well as policy decisions on the ground of it being in conflict

with the doctrines of 'legitimate expectation' and 'promissory estoppel'.

We have not even scintilla of doubt in our mind that the Order of 2015

has been issued by the Government of India to achieve the salutary object

of providing the Essential Commodities i.e. food grains to such section of

the society, who because of one reason or another have either no access

to these commodities or have access to the same but with extreme

difficulty. The National Food Security Act, 2013 was promulgated by the

Government of India and applied in the erstwhile State of J&K as well,

with the object of providing food and nutritional security and ensuring

access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people

to live a life of dignity. This object is being vigorously pursued by the

Central Government as well as UT Government in furtherance of Order

of 2015 with identification of eligible households. This objective is being

achieved through opening of new fair price shops and strengthening the

network of already existing fair price shops. Equally true is that the fair

price shop system is also contributing to the generation of employment,

though the same has never been the main object of the Targeted Public

Distribution System, but incidental thereto. Respondents have been

categoric in their stand that the sole purpose of SO 41 dated 19.01.2023

2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB

a/w connected matters

issued in terms of Order of 2015 is to ensure supplies of essential

commodities and their availability as well.

10. We agree with the respondents that the SO 41 is, in fact, an action on the

part of the respondents in fulfilling the object/aim of the Article 47 of the

Constitution of India. Article-47 in fact, is the guiding lamp showing a

way to the Government to tread upon, to achieve the goals of raising the

level of nutritional security and improving public health. The SO 41 has

been issued by the respondents in public interest and when the public

interest competes against the individual rights of some citizens

(petitioners in the present case) and when the complaint is made by them

in respect of the violation of the doctrines of 'legitimate expectation' and

'promissory estoppel', then the interest of public at large steal a march on

individual interest of the few citizens. In this context, it would be

appropriate to take note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Puja Ferro Alloys P.Ltd vs State Of Goa And Ors, 2025INSC217,

wherein the issue of promissory estoppel was raised in respect of

withdrawal of rebate by the State of Goa, and rejecting the contention of

the Companies, it was held that "In our opinion, public interest is what

turns the tide against the appellant-companies. The SoG before the High

Court in GR Ispat (supra) had specifically taken the stand that the policy

of rebate was unviable resulting from financial crunch and was

overriding public interest."

11. In P.T.R. Exports (Madras) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC

268, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

                            (RAJNESH OSWAL)                      (ARUN PALLI)
                               JUDGE                             CHIEF JUSTICE
SRINAGAR:
30.10.2025
Rakesh PS
                            Whether the order is speaking:   Yes
                            Whether the order is reportable: No