[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajasthan Ration Vikreta Sangharsh ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:15904-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1370/2025
Rajasthan Ration Vikreta Sangharsh Samiti, Jaipur, District
Dungarpur Raj Branch, Through Its District Head, Dungarpur
Rakesh Jain Son Of Vakher Chand Jain Aged 46 Years, Resident
Of Rupot Fala Mathugamda, District Dungarpur Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Food And Civil
Supplies Department, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Department Of Food And Civil
Supplies, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. District Collector, Dungarpur.
4. The District Supply Officer, Dungarpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Akshiti Singhvi
Mr. Piyush Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Jhala for
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, A.A.G.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
07/04/2026
1. The present appeal assails the order dated 24.09.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
18021/2025, whereby the petition filed by the appellant was
dismissed wherein it had prayed to direct the respondents to
adhere to the guidelines laid down by the State Government for
issuing fresh advertisement for grant of fair price shops at
Dungarpur.
2. The learned Single Judge has held that the determination of
number of consumers to be attached to a fair price shop is within
the exclusive domain of the State Government and the contention
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 06:22:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15904-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1370/2025]
regarding economic viability cannot be sustained. It was held that
operation of fair price shop is not intended as a commercial
venture, but a service to marginalized sections of society for which
a commission is provided.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the fair price shops which were allotted to its members were
operating on the basis of the guidelines issued by the State
Government which requires minimum prescribed threshold of five
hundred ration cards under it or two thousand units. She further
submitted that on account of the cancellation of licences of some
nearby fair price shops, the said fair price shops had been
additionally allotted to the existing fair price shop owners. It is
contended that, in view of the issuance of a fresh advertisement,
there exists a genuine apprehension among the existing fair price
shop owners that their business would be substantially reduced.
4. Learned counsel submits that the operation of fair price
shops, by its very nature, constitutes a commercial activity, and
therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is
erroneous.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State apart
from relying upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Hari Om Meena & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 400/2015 and
connected Special Appeals (decided on 28.07.2015), submitted
that the criteria of allotting fair price shops with five hundred
ration cards or two thousand units is a guideline and is not of
mandatory nature. It was further submitted that fair price shops
may be established even where the number of consumers is less
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 06:22:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15904-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1370/2025]
than 500, as the Collector is vested with the discretion to assess
the requirements of a particular area and permit the opening of a
fair price shop with a lesser number of ration cards, depending
upon the conditions of a particular area.
6. He further submits that no right is created in favour of those
fair price shop owners to whom additional charge has been
handed over with regard to the other fair price shop where the
licence of the owner was cancelled on account of circumstances or
reasons and such ration card owners were shifted to other fair
price shop, which is only a stop-gap arrangement and cannot be
said to create a right in favour of the existing fair price shop
owner to continue with such ration cards which are originally
meant to be run by another fair price shop.
7. We have deliberated on the contentions raised and also on
the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Hari Om Meena (supra). While entertaining this appeal on
14.10.2025, we passed following orders :
4. Keeping in view the order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur in Hari
Om Meena & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 400/2015
(decided on 28.07.2015) prima faice we find
that if any new Fair Price Shops are to be
introduced in the same area, it would not
encroach upon the business of the existing Fair
Price Shops and can only be granted license to
do business for new ration holders in the said
area.
5. We therefore until further orders restrain
the respondents from reducing the existing
ration holders of the concerned Fair Price
Shops.
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 06:22:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15904-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1370/2025]
8. The circulars have been issued from time to time by the Food
and Civil Supplies Department of the State relating to the criteria
to be adopted for the purpose of allotting a fair price shop and a
consistent approach has been adopted by the State Government
since 2010 to allot a fair price shop and criteria of keeping five
hundred ration cards with minimum two thousand units as a
benchmark. Thus, we notice that the State Government has been
allotting shops and directing that each fair price shop should have
five hundred ration cards or two thousand units. However, such
criteria can be said to be minimum criteria, which can be
increased. At the same time, while opening a fair price shop
initially, the number of ration cards may be less, but they may
increase and attempt should be that after a fair price shop has five
hundred ration card consumers or two thousand units, another fair
price shop can be opened in that area. This would ensure greater
convenience for all consumers having ration cards. Therefore, the
attempt of the State Government in opening new fair price shop,
cannot be said, in any manner to be unjustified or illegal or
contrary to the provision of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
or the Control Order which lays down the criteria.
9. At the same time, we may also observe that the existing fair
price shops cannot be asked to relieve their present consumers for
the purpose of establishment of a new fair price shop. Such
directions, if issued by the State Government, would amount to
violating the rights of doing business and can be treated as an
arbitrary action.
10. While we therefore, do not accept the contentions of the
petitioner - appellant of disallowing the State to advertise new fair
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 06:22:51 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15904-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1370/2025]
price shops, but at the same time, we would restrain the State
from reducing the existing ration card holders of the concerned
fair price shop already existing.
11. We may further observe, that the view taken by the learned
Single Judge, characterizing the activity carried out by fair price
shop owners as merely a service and not a commercial venture,
does not align with the scheme governing the allotment of fair
price shops. Although the operation of such shops is subject to
certain conditions imposed under the Control Order of 2015, the
nature of the activity, wherein the shop owner derives income,
indicates that it partakes the character of a commercial venture
for the fair price shop licence holder rather than a mere service
rendered on behalf of the State. Consequently, any infringement
of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
would constitute a valid ground for invoking the writ jurisdiction.
12. Accordingly, the present Special Appeal is hereby partly
allowed.
13. The view, we may add that the judgment passed in the case
of Hari Om Meena (supra) although makes several observations,
but essentially the petition was examined on the ground of being
premature and the obiter in the said judgment is only for the
purpose of relevance.
14. Stay application and pending application, if any, stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
14-shashikant-jatin/-
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 06:22:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
