Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shera Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 September, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (1 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13163/2025
Mohammad Salim S/o Kamrudeen, Aged About 48 Years,
Resident Of Near Jamal Masjid, Dada Mohalla, Nagaur, District
Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Food
And Civil Supplies Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner And Deputy Secretary To The
Government, Food And Civil Supplies Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. District Collector (Supply), Nagaur.
4. District Supply Officer, Nagaur.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13181/2025
Jakir Hussain S/o Shabir Khan, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of
Pathanon Ka Mohalla, Nagaur, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Food
And Civil Supplies Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner And Deputy Secretary To The
Government, Food And Civil Supplies Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. District Collector (Supply), Nagaur.
4. District Supply Officer, Nagaur.
----Respondents
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13237/2025
Devkaran S/o Hansraj, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Somna,
Tahsil Deh District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (2 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Commissioner
Cum Deputy Secretary- Food, Civil Supplies And
Consumer Affairs Department, Rajasthan.
2. The District Collector (Rasad), Nagaur (Raj.).
3. The District Supply Officer, Nagaur District Nagaur.
----Respondents
(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13525/2025
Ramratan S/o Shri Madanlal, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of
Ward No- 05, Bhakharwali, 10 Kwd, Tehsil- Rawatsar, District-
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Food And
Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector (Supply), Hanumangarh.
3. The District Supplies Officer, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13598/2025
Manohar Lal S/o Shri Budh Ram, Aged About 68 Years, Resident
Of 7 Dd, Tehsil Gharsana, District- Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Food,
Civil Supply And Consumer Matter Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Food Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).
4. The District Supply Officer (Rasad), District-
Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13610/2025
Ajeet Pal S/o Devi Lal, Aged About 51 Years, 24 Asc, Gurdyal
Colony, New Mandi Gharsana, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus

(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (3 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Food,
Civil Supply And Consumer Matter Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Food Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).
4. The District Supply Officer (Rasad), District
Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13759/2025
M/s Roshan Lal Middha Oil Corporation, Gharsana Through Its
Pro. Roshan Lal Middha S/o Shri Sobh Raj, Aged About 65 Years,
Resident Of 3 Str, Tehsil Gharsana, District-Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Food,
Civil Supply And Consumer Matter Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Food Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).
4. The District Supply Officer (Rasad), District-
Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
(8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13785/2025
Krishan Lal S/o Shri Devi Lal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of
Vill. Bilochiya, Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Food,
Civil Supply And Consumer Matter Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Food Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).

4. The District Supply Officer (Rasad), District-
Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (4 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

(9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13954/2025
Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Moti Ram, Aged About 58 Years, Resident
Of H.no. 117-B , Ward No. 2, Purani Aabadi, Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Food,
Civil Supply And Consumer Matter Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Food Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector (Rasad), Sriganganagar
(Rajasthan).
4. The District Supply Officer, District Sriganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
(10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15924/2025
Shera Ram S/o Pokra Ram Prajapat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Chado Ki Dhani, Tehsil Sindhari, District Balotra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Food
And Civil Supplies Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Food Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Balotra.
4. District Supply Officer, Food And Civil Supplies Officer,
Balotra.
----Respondents
(11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15929/2025
Mangi Lal S/o Laxmi Narayan Maheshwari, Aged About 42
Years, Devriya, Tehsil Kalyanpur, District Balotra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Food
And Civil Supplies Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Food Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Balotra.
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (5 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

4. District Supply Officer, Food And Civil Supplies Officer,
Balotra.
----Respondents
(12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15962/2025
Likhma Ram S/o Shri Chimna Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/
o Sheshma Ka Bas, Prempura, Tehsil Kuchaman City,
District Didwana- Kuchaman, (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector
Didwana- Kuchaman, Dist. Didwana- Kuchaman,
Rajasthan.
2. The District Supply Officer, Didwana- Kuchaman,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents

(13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13470/2025
Renubala W/o Naveen Kumar, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village
Amarpura Rathan, Tehsil Pilibanga District Hanumangarh At
Present Residing At Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Food
And Civil Supplies Department, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
3. The District Supply Officer, Hanumangarh.
4. The Manager, Food And Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents

(14) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13520/2025
Sushila Kumari W/o Shushil Kumar, Aged About 32 Years,
Village 3, 99 Rd, Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus

(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (6 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Food
And Civil Supplies Department, Government
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
3. The District Supply Officer, Hanumangarh.
4. The Manager, Food And Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents

(15) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13950/2025
M/s Bhagirath Oil Store Rawla, Through Its Proprietor Balwant
Singh S/o Shri Ram Swaroop, Aged About 48 Years, Resident
Of Rawla, Tehsil Gharsana, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Food, Civil Supply And Consumer Matter Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Food Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, (Rasad), Sriganganagar
(Rajasthan).
4. The District Supply Officer, District- Sriganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents

(16) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14829/2025
Omprakash S/o Sukhram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village
Jakheranwali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Food
And Civil Supplies Department, Government
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
3. The District Supply Officer, Hanumangarh.
4. The Manager, Food And Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (7 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

(17) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15468/2025

Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Girdhari Ram, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o Mandal Jodha, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector
(Supply), Nagaur, Dist. Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. The District Supply Officer, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nimba Ram Choudhary
Mr. Mohan Ram Choudhary
Mr. R.C. Joshi
Mr. Hans Raj
Mr. Manjeet
Mr. Vikram Singh Jaitawat
Mr. Manoj Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Shrimali
Mr. Nitesh Mathur

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order

Reportable
Reserved on : 22/08/2025
Pronounced on : 12/09/2025

1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in the

present writ petitions, therefore, the same are being decided by

this Court by this common order.

2. The brief facts, as stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.13163/2025, are that an advertisement was issued in the year

2000 for allotment of a fair price shop at Ward No.27, Dada

Mohalla, Ginani Talab, Nagaur City, which, after delimitation, came

to be re-designated as Ward No.28 and subsequently as Ward

No.34.

(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (8 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

2.1 Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied

and was allotted the fair price shop in the year 2000, and since

then, he has been operating the same at the aforesaid location. At

present, the petitioner caters to about 500 ration card holders

enrolled under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act of 2013').

2.2 The case of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that

the respondents have issued an advertisement dated 25.06.2025

proposing establishment of new fair price shops on the

recommendations of the local M.L.A. and Minister, which includes a

shop at Ward No.34, Dada Mohalla, Ginani Talab, Nagaur City, the

very location already allotted to the petitioner in the year 2000.

2.3 The petitioner is aggrieved on the ground that the proposed

fair price shop in Ward No.34 would encroach upon and overlap

with the area of operation where he is presently running his fair

price shop. One additional submission is made by the counsel in

this particular writ petition that recommendation for new fair price

shop was for Ward No.8, whereas respondents have proposed new

fair price shop in Ward No.34.

2.4 In other connected writ petitions, a similar grievance has

been raised by the petitioners, contending that being existing

license holders of fair price shops, the respondents are arbitrarily

proposing to establish new shops in areas already covered by their

operations.

3. Learned counsels for the petitioners made the following

submissions:-

(i) The action of the respondents in proposing new fair price

shops through the impugned advertisement is contrary to the

guidelines issued by the State Government, particularly those
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (9 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

communicated on 07.04.2010, 17.03.2016, 22.10.2019 and

26.12.2019. These guidelines are mandatory in nature and

specifically prohibit establishment of a new fair price shop in an

area where the number of ration-card holders attached to an

existing shop is 500 or less. Therefore, respondent authorities

being bound by the said guidelines could not have arbitrarily

issued the advertisement in question proposing to establish new

fair price shops.

(ii) Before deciding establishment of new fair price shops, the

respondents have neither prepared any report nor conducted any

study to substantiate the need of new fair price shops. Despite the

guidelines of the State Government, even if the power of

relaxation is assumed to exist, a proper assessment in respect of

each shop is essential to determine whether opening a new shop

would serve larger public interest or whether geographical

considerations necessitate relaxation of prescribed norms in the

aforementioned guidelines.

(iii) The Report of Justice Wadhwa Committee suggests that the

minimum consumers must be ensured so that the holder of fair

price shops gets reasonable commission, else he would indulge in

mal-practices. Therefore, the State should ensure minimum 500

ration-card holders. However, by issuing the notifications in

question, the State Government is proceeding de-hors the

aforesaid report.

(iv) Consumers currently allotted to the fair price shops operated

by the petitioners are beneficiaries duly selected under the

National Food Security Act, 2013.

(v) The establishment/allotment of new fair price shops in areas

where petitioners are running their respective shops without any
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (10 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

complaint or default, would not only adversely affect their

business but would also violate their fundamental right enshrined

under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(vi) The entire exercise of proposing new fair price shops has

been undertaken at the behest of the local M.L.A./Minister and is,

therefore, politically motivated.

(vii) The action of the State authorities is discriminatory inasmuch

as in certain areas, despite the number of consumers exceeding

1000, no new fair price shop has been proposed.

(viii) All consumers attached to each fair price shop are duly

uploaded on the website of the respondent-department, hence it

cannot be contended that consumers are at liberty to avail ration

from any fair price shop of their choice.

(ix) The issue raised in the present writ petitions is no longer res

integra. A Coordinate Bench of this Court (Jaipur Bench) in

Babushyam & Ramphool v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.4384/2012, decided on 18.09.2012],

has already settled the matter. The same view was reiterated in

Siyaram Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.11913/2012, decided on 10.12.2012]. Recently,

similar views were taken by this Court at its Principal Seat in

Shankarlal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.206/2023, decided on 01.02.2023] and in

Shri Hardu v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.2237/2023, decided on 16.02.2023].

3.1 In light of the above submissions and in view of the

judgments cited, learned counsels for the petitioners submit that

the impugned advertisements proposing establishment/allotment

of new fair price shops, which directly overlap the areas already
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (11 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

being served by the petitioners, are illegal and deserve to be

quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents,

made the following submissions:-

(i) It is a policy matter of the State Government to determine

the number of fair price shops required in any given area, and the

petitioners have no vested right to challenge such a policy

decision.

(ii) In the present case, no legal right of the petitioners stands

violated or is likely to be infringed merely by allotment of new fair

price shops.

(iii) The petitioners have failed to establish which of their legal or

fundamental rights, if any, have been violated on account of the

impugned advertisements.

(iv) The petitioners have no valid cause of action to maintain

these writ petitions. The allotment of fair price shops is the

prerogative of the State, and the petitioners cannot claim

monopoly over a particular area. It is solely for the State

Government to assess and decide the number of shops necessary

to cater to consumers in a given locality.

(v) The petitioners have placed reliance on earlier circulars,

whereas the State Government has subsequently issued a circular

dated 10.05.2025. As per the said circular, while earlier norms

required allotment of a new shop only when an existing shop had

more than 500 ration-cards or 2000 NFSA unit holders, a

relaxation has now been provided keeping in view geographical

conditions and larger public interest. Thus, the earlier stipulations

are no longer absolute, and the State is empowered to relax the

norms wherever necessary.
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (12 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

(vi) The decision to establish new fair price shops is not based

merely on the recommendations of any M.L.A. or Minister. While

public representatives are entitled to highlight the need for such

shops, the ultimate decision rests on consideration of larger public

interest, and cannot be said to be politically motivated.

(vii) The issue sought to be raised in these writ petitions already

stands settled. The petitioners have sought to rely on a judgment

rendered in 2012 to obtain interim relief, whereas in subsequent

decisions, it has been categorically held that existing fair price

shop licensees have no right to question the policy decision of the

State Government to open new shops in the same area of

operation.

(viii) In support of the contention aforesaid, reliance is placed on

the judgment of a Coordinate Bench (Jaipur Bench) in a batch of

writ petitions led by Neeraj Sharma & Anr. v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9137/2016,

decided on 06.02.2017]. In that case, while considering and

distinguishing the earlier judgments relied upon by the petitioners

therein, the Court held that licensees cannot claim monopoly over

their area of operation. The requirement of having 500 ration-

cards was found to be a matter of executive guidelines, which

neither conferred any legally enforceable right nor restricted the

power of the Government to frame policy. The Court further

observed that such guidelines are executive instructions only, and

courts cannot interfere in policy formulation regarding the number

of cardholders to be attached to a fair price shop. In doing so, the

Court also considered the renditions made in the earlier decisions

in Babushyam (supra), Jitendra Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5101/2015,
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (13 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

decided on 30.04.2015], and Bhawani Singh Gurjar &

Others v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 5460/2015, decided on 23.04.2015]. Similarly, a

Coordinate Bench (Jaipur Bench) in the case of Hukum Singh

Gurjar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.13779/2016, decided on 06.03.2017] disposed of

the writ petitions in the same terms.

Further, in Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

[S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6390/2021, decided on

06.09.2021], a Coordinate Bench held that existing fair price

shop licensees cannot claim any right to exclusively run a shop in

a given area, reiterating that it is for the State Government alone

to decide the number of shops required in a particular Gram

Panchayat.

The judgment rendered in the case of Neeraj Sharma

(supra) is based upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court

(Jaipur Bench) in the case of Hari Om Meena & Anr. v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W)

No.400/2015, decided on 28.07.2015], wherein it was

categorically held that neither the Report of the Justice Wadhwa

Committee is binding upon the State nor the guidelines requiring a

minimum of 500 ration-card holders to be attached to a fair price

shop are mandatory in nature. It was further held that such

guidelines are not binding, and it is the sole prerogative of the

State to determine the number of fair price shops required in a

given area.

4.1 In light of the above submissions and the judgments relied

upon, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the

petitioners have secured interim relief by misleading the Court
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (14 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

without disclosing the correct legal position. Accordingly, the writ

petitions are liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

6. Before going into the merits of the present writ petitions, it

would be appropriate to first discuss the earlier litigation, which

arose before this Court on the issue, which is raised in the present

bunch of petitions. As per the judgments cited by respective

parties, it appears that the judgment rendered in the case of

Babushyam (supra), the Court directed the respondent-

authorities to abide by Circular dated 22.01.2010 so also the

Report of Justice Wadhwa Committee.

6.1 Based on the said judgment, another writ petition in the

matter of Siyaram Meena (supra) was also decided in the same

terms.

6.2 Based on the above two decisions, the order dated

01.02.2023 was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Shankarlal (supra) while deciding the writ petition. It is to be

noted that though the said order was passed in the presence of

the learned counsel for the respondents, however, it appears that

the counsel appearing for the respondents did not point out about

the other judgments, which came to be delivered after the

decision rendered in the case of Siiyaram Meena (supra).

6.3 Similarly, another writ petition in the case of Shri Hardu

(supra) came to be decided on 16.02.2023, relying on the earlier

decision rendered in the case of Shankarlal (supra).

7. In the year 2015, the respondents proposed to allot new fair

price sops in some of the areas where there were already existing

fair price shop holders. Such action was challenged in one of the
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (15 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

writ petitions being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6121/2015, titled

Kailash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., and the said writ

petition came to be dismissed by the Coordinate Bench vide order

dated 11.05.2015 while holding that the petitioners have no right

to question the decision of the State Government for allotment of

new fair price shops.

7.1 The decision rendered in the case of Kailash Chandra

(supra), was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Hari Om Meena (supra) which came to be decided on

28.07.2015. It is to be noted that the Division Bench has

considered the arguments based on the Report of Justice Wadhwa

Committee, so also the earlier decisions, however, the Division

Bench ordered that the petitioners have no right to claim mandate

of minimum 500 ration cards as neither guidelines nor the said

Report of Justice Wadhwa Committee are having binding force and

it is the policy decision of the State Government to determine the

need of fair price shops in a particular area. For ready reference,

the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Hari

Om Meena (supra) are reproduced as under:-

"4. We find that the petitioners had not acquired any cause of
action to file the writ petitions, inasmuch as the advertisement
inviting offers for allotment of fair price shops, were neither
finalized, nor any order was passed, by which the number of
ration cards or the units attached to them were reduced. In the
letter of the Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Secretary, Food,
Supply and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of
Rajasthan, dated 07.04.2010, there was a direction to carry out
survey, on which new fair price shops may be established,
where it is found that number of ration cards are less than 500.
It was directed that the advertisement should be made so that
number of cards attached to a fair price shop do not fall below
500 ration cards, or 2000 units. The direction to carry out
survey for allotment of new fair price shops, in which there
should be at least 500 ration cards attached to a fair price
shop, did not in any way, violate the petitioners' rights,
inasmuch as the object of the public distribution scheme, is to
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/09/2025 at 10:15:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (16 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

ensure fair and equitable distribution of the scheduled
commodities.

5. It is apparent that the petitioners, apprehending that with the
opening of new fair price shops, the ration cards attached to
their shops may be reduced, rushed to the Court for obtaining
relief, for which they did not acquire any cause of action.
...

8. The reasons given by learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners do not have either contractual, or any legal right, to insist upon opening up of fair price shops with at least 500 ration cards, and resultantly not to reduce the number of ration cards attached to the petitioners shops, do not suffer from any legal error. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners do not have any vested right to insist upon at least 500 ration cards attached to their shops.

9. We may also observe that there may be various situations, in which looking to the geographical conditions and the exigency of distribution, the number of ration cards attached to a fair price shop, may either exceed or be reduced below 500, and in such case the authorized dealer would have no legal right to challenge the action.

10. In the present case, almost all the petitioners have more than 500 ration cards, attached to their shops, and thus, there was no threat to the viability of their business. It is apparent that the writ petitions, giving rise to these Special Appeals, were based only on the apprehension. There was no legal injury suffered by them to maintain the writ petitions."

8. Later, the same issue was again raised in the Neeraj

Sharma (supra) and other connected matters, wherein the

Coordinate Bench (Jaipur Bench) disposed of the writ petition on

06.02.2017, majorly based on the decision rendered by the

Division Bench. The writ petitions were disposed of as the Court

was not inclined to interfere in view of the observations made by

the Division Bench, however, while disposing of the writ petitions it

was observed that in future if the State intends to notify fresh

applications, it shall keep in view the Report of the Justice

Wadhwa Committee, so also the recommendations with regard to

having 500 ration cards attached to a particular fair price shop.


However, even while   making
                 (Uploaded          such
                           on 12/09/2025      observations,
                                         at 03:00:34 PM)    the Division

 [2025:RJ-JD:38216]                   (17 of 23)                    [CW-13163/2025]

Bench observed that petitioners therein had no legal or vested

right to insist upon having particular number of ration cards. It

was observed as under:-

"The petitioners have relied upon the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Babushyam & Ramphool Gurjar(supra) wherein, learned Single Judge disposed off the writ petition with direction that the number of ration cards attached to Fair Price Shops of the petitioners therein be maintained and prior to allotment of new Fair Price Shops to Women Cooperative Societies, the number of 500 ration cards in respect of each Fair Price Shop be ensured as per the government's own policy and the Justice Wadhwa Committee report. When the aforesaid judgment was cited before this Court on 30.04.2015 in Jitendra Singh & Others(supra), this Court even though observed that issue of commission payable to the dealers of fair price shops is fundamentally a matter of contract between the State Government and the dealers, but required the petitioners therein to make a detailed representation in this regard to the State Government in its Department of Food and required the State Government to decide the same in the context of necessity of fair price shops being economically viable with further direction to ensure that 500 ration cards in respect of petitioners' fair price shops therein are maintained. In this connection, it was also observed that if necessary, the respondents shall restructure to the extent necessary, the fair price shops in the concerned Tehsil/Gram Panchayat.

Another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kailash Chand & Others(supra) held that there is no vested right in favour of the petitioners therein to have minimum 500 cards holders. Even if it is presumed that the State Government has issued guidelines to ensure that the fair price shop should have 500 card holders, then also guidelines would not create any legal right. Guidelines or executive instructions do no confer any legally enforceable right, nor courts can formulate the policy as to how many card holders should be attached to a fair price shop. Such matter would be within the domain of administrative decision and cannot be an issue of judicial review. Similar orders were passed in other writ petitions while dismissing them. When the matter was taken up before Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed ten special appeals in the case of Hari Om Meena & Another(supra) upholding aforesaid orders passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, noting that almost all the petitioners therein have more than 500 ration cards, attached to their shops and thus, there was no threat to the viability of their business. Division Bench further held that the writ petitions, giving rise to those special appeals, were based only on the apprehension and there was no legal injury suffered by them to maintain (Uploaded the writ on petitions.

12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (18 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

....

Justice D.P. Wadhwa in para 19 of his report concluded thus:

"Number of ration cards attached to a shop has a direct bearing on the income of FPS. There should be rationalization of cards for each FPS. There is a need for rationalization of the number of beneficiaries attached to the FPS to make the shops financially viable. Each FPS should have from 500 to 1000 cards. If number of ration cards exceeds 1000, the FPS should be bifurcated."

In view of direct Division Bench judgment, this Court is not inclined to interfere in these writ petitions. However, all the writ petitions are disposed off with the observation that if the State Government in future decides to invite fresh applications for selection of fair price shop dealers, it shall keep in view the Justice Wadhwa Committee's recommendations, which apparently was meant to ensure reasonable income to the fair price shop dealers so that they do not indulge in malpractices and consider having minimum 500 ration cards. It, however, goes without saying that there is no legal or vested right of the petitioners to insist upon having a particular number of ration cards."

9. Similarly, another bunch of writ petitions with leading case

Hukum Singh Gurjar(supra) came to be decided on 06.03.2017

with identical observations as was made in the case of Neeraj

Sharma (supra).

10. In the year 2020, the respondent-department issued another

notification for allotment of fair price shops and that too came to

be challenged in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra). The

Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition for the

reason that the petitioners therein, who were running fair price

shops, cannot claim as a matter of right to run the shop in the

area in question. It was further held that it is for the State

Government to decide number of shops, which are required in the

concerned area and in view of the observations made, the writ

petition was not found to be having any merit and the same was

dismissed. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-

(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (19 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. This writ petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons firstly, admittedly the respondents have invited applications for allotment of land and no final decision has been taken by the respondents, secondly, the petitioner who is already running the fair price shop cannot claim as a matter of right of running shop in the area in question. It is for the State Government to decide the number of shops to be run in the concerned gram panchayat; lastly in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed."

11. The position of law which can be concluded from the above-

mentioned judgments is as follows:

(i) The establishment/allotment of fair price shops is a policy

matter therefore, the State Government has sole authority to

decide as to the number of fair price shops in an area;

(ii) the guidelines or executive/administrative instructions issued

from time to time, are neither mandatory in nature nor confer any

right upon the existing fair price shops holders;

(iii) the report of the Justice Wadhwa Committee is merely

suggestive in nature and may be a guiding factor for taking

decision to open new fair price shops in particular area; and

(iv) the existing fair price shop holders do not have any inherent

or contractual or legal right enforceable against the decision to

establish/allot new fair shops.

12. In view of above analysis, this Court will now consider the

arguments advanced in the present writ petitions.

13. The argument with regard to the impugned advertisements

being in violation of the guidelines or not adhering to the Report of

Justice Wadhwa Committee, were already considered in the earlier

judgments and, therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate

to delve into the same.

(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (20 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

14. The argument with regard to action of establishing new fair

price shops being malafide and politically motivated at the

instance of local M.L.A./Minister to extend benefit to blue-eyed

persons is devoid of merit. There is no material placed on record

in the present writ petitions, which could indicate that the

respondents are proposing new fair price shops at the instance of

local M.L.A. or Minister. The local M.L.A./Minister, being public

representative, can always recommend for opening of fair price

shops, based on the demand raised by the public and considering

such demand, if the State has decided to notify the applications

for new fair price shops, it would not automatically indicate that

such advertisement is meant to extend benefit to any blue-eyed

person. The allotment of new fair price shops is yet to be made,

therefore, at this stage, the allegation of allotment of new fair

price shops to blue-eyed persons is baseless.

15. Moreso, most of the petitioners in the present bunch of writ

petitions, are running fair price shops for about 20 years, cannot

claim monopoly in the area in question. Due to rise in population

and other factors, if the State Government thought it fit to open

new fair price shops, that too looking to the welfare of the public

of the area in question, cannot be questioned as the same is

nothing but a policy decision of the State Government. In the

cases of Hari Om Meena (supra) and Neeraj Sharma (supra),

though the Court observed that in future if new fair price shops

are proposed, then, guidelines so also the suggestions made in

the Report of Justice Wadhwa Committee be considered to ensure

reasonable income but at the same time, it was observed that

there is no legal right or vested right of petitioners therein to insist

upon having a particular number of ration cards. Meaning thereby, (Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (21 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

the decision to allot new fair price shop was left to the decision of

the State Government.

16. The petitioners have raised one of the ground that before

taking decision to open new fair price shops, the State authorities

have not conducted any survey to ascertain the need of new fair

price shops in the area where petitioners are running fair price

shops. In the opinion of this Court even if such survey is not

conducted, yet the State Government can decide new fair price

shops based on public demand. Even if the ratio of maintaining

minimum 500 ration cards for each fair price shops is not

followed, the same would not give rise to any cause for the

petitioners as such requirement itself is directory and the report of

Justice Wadhwa Committee is merely suggestive.

17. As far as allegation of discrimination of having fair price

shops in some area with 1000 or more ration cards, yet no new

fair price shop is proposed is concerned, it may be in some cases

there might be fair price shops having less than 500 ration card

holders or may be in some cases more than 500. Based on

geographical condition, the numbers may vary but that by itself

cannot be said to be discriminatory act, more particularly when

main purpose of fair price shop is not to provide business but to

ensure distribution of essential commodities to marginalized

members of society and, therefore, allegation of arbitrariness or

discrimination is not sustainable.

18. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13163/2024, an additional

submission was made while highlighting the fact that

recommendation of MLA/Minister was for Ward No.8, whereas

respondents proposed a new fair price shop in Ward No.34. As

discussed earlier, it is the prerogative of the State authorities to (Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:38216] (22 of 23) [CW-13163/2025]

decide the requirement of fair price shops and, therefore, such

recommendations have no binding force. It is the decision of the

State Government which is final, therefore, such submission

deserves to be rejected.

19. It is also relevant to note that the condition of 500 ration

cards is not mandatory. The State Government, before issuing the

advertisements in question, issued another circular dated

10.05.2025, whereby the condition of 500 ration cards has been

maintained, but, the same can be relaxed looking to the

geographical conditions and in larger public interest. The same is

reproduced as under:-

"uohu nqdkuksa ds fu/kkZj.k esas jk'V~zh; [kk?k lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 2013

ds rgr p;fur 500 jk"ku dkMksZa ,oa 2000 ;wfuV ds vk/kkj ij gh mfpr ewY; nqdku dk iquZfu/kkZj.k fd;k tk;s] fdUrq HkkSxksfyd fLFkfr ds n`f'Vxr ,oa tufgr esa mfpr ekax ds vk/kkj ij blesa ftyk dyDVj ds Lrj ij f"kfFkyrk nh tk ldsxhA vr% blds vuw:i dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk lqfuf"pr djkosaA"

19.1 The recent circular dated 10.05.2025 further indicates that

the State Government has kept condition of 500 ration cards

intact, perhaps considering the directions issued by Justice

Wadhwa Committee so also in view of the directions issued by this

Court in earlier judgments, while deciding to relax these norms in

exceptional cases based on geographical location and in larger

public interest. That being so, if the State Government has

decided to open new fair price shops in existing area of operation

of the petitioners, same would not make such action arbitrary or

discriminatory or illegal in any manner.

20. As an upshot of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion

that opening of new fair price shop is a policy decision of the (Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 03:00:34 PM)