SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 421

G.B.PATTANAIK, M.B.SHAH
District Collector – Appellant
Versus
B. Suresh – Respondent


ORDER

1. Substitution allowed.

2. Leave granted.

3. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondents, who were appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealers under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, can claim a right to be noticed when the State Government decides to bifurcate the shops and reduce the number of cards. The High Court by the impugned judgment, being of the opinion that such Fair Price Shop Dealers are to be noticed before any alteration is made, has quashed the decision of the Government. The State assails the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.

4. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, which order has been framed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 a Fair Price Shop Dealer has no right to be appointed as such dealer. The licence which such dealer has obtained under the provisions of the Act to deal with the commodities has not been cancelled. The right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not being affected in any manner. The Government, as a






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top