1. Dispute regarding the requirement of notice to Fair Price Shop Dealers under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Order, 1973, upon shop bifurcation and card reduction. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 421
1999(9) Supreme 227
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik & M.B. Shah, JJ.
District Collector & Anr. -Appellants
versus
B. Suresh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeals No. 1954-1975 of 1999
Decided on 1-4-1999
Important Points
Fair Price Shop Dealers have no right to be noticed when the State Government makes a policy decision to bifurcate shops or reduce the number of cards, as such actions do not affect their right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) or result in license cancellation.
Subject
Administrative Law - Fair Price Shop Dealers' Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Essential Commodities-Public Distribution System-Fair Price Shop Dealers-Govt. bifurcating shops and reducing number of cards per shop-Dealers challenging order on ground they should have been noticed before bifurcation-Policy decision of Govt. does not affect right of Fair Price Shop Dealers-Right to trade not affected-They were not entitled to prior notice (Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973.
Held : 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 policy decision, decided to reduce the number of cards per dealer. Such decision does not affect the rights, if any, of the Fair Price Shop Dealers and as such the High Court was in error to hold that they were to be given any notice prior to the impugned decision of the State Government. (Para 4)
(ii) Administrative Law-Audialteram partem-Fair Price Shop Dealers-Government bifurcating shops and reducing number of cards per shops-Dealers plea that Governments order not valid since they were not given prior notice-Not tenable-Right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution not affected-Policy decision of Government did not affect rights of dealers-Dealers not entitled to prior notice. (Para 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Fair Price Shop Dealers possess a right to be noticed before the State Government implements policy decisions to bifurcate shops and reduce card numbers. (Para 3 )
3. Policy decisions to reduce card numbers do not cancel licenses or infringe upon the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. (Para 4 )
4. Dealers appointed under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Order, 1973, have no right to appointment or notice regarding policy-driven reductions in card numbers. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed and the impugned order of the High Court set aside. (Para 5 )
6. Do Fair Price Shop Dealers have a right to be noticed before the State Government bifurcates shops or reduces the number of cards?
No. Such a decision is a policy matter that does not affect the dealers' rights or their licenses under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and therefore does not require prior notice. (Para 4 )
7. Does the reduction of cards per dealer violate the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India?
No, the court held that a policy decision to reduce the number of cards per dealer does not affect the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). (Para 4 )
8. Do dealers appointed under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Order, 1973, have a legal right to be appointed as such dealers?
No, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, a Fair Price Shop Dealer has no right to be appointed as such dealer. (Para 4 )
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 policy decision, decided to reduce the number of cards per dealer. Such decision does not affect the rights, if any, of the Fair Price Shop Dealers and as such the High Court was in error to hold that they were to be given any notice prior to the impugned decision of the State Government.
5. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and allow this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
*************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
District Collector & Anr. v. B. Suresh & Ors., 1999(9) Supreme 227
00021
