Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Abdul Nazeer, Vikram Nath, JJ.
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Gitashree Dutta (dey) – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4254 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 30438 of 2019)
Decided On : 20-04-2022
Legitimate Expectation - Fair Price Shop Vacancies - National Food Security Act, 2013 - Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 12 - The court considered the cancellation of Fair Price Shop vacancies in view of the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The doctrine of legitimate expectation was discussed in the context of public law rights and the fairness and non-arbitrariness in governmental actions. The court emphasized that legitimate expectation cannot prevail over a policy introduced by the Government, which does not suffer from any perversity, unfairness, or unreasonableness. The judgment also highlighted the mandatory nature of the provisions of the 2013 Act and the responsibility of the State to implement the Act and bring about reforms in the existing Public Distribution System as stipulated under Section 12 of the said Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal concerned the cancellation of Fair Price Shop vacancies in the State of West Bengal in view of the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The respondent participated in the selection process and was recommended as a first priority candidate, but the vacancies were cancelled by the State Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of vacancies was necessary for the implementation of the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013. It held that the respondent had no vested right to seek continuation of the notified vacancies, and there can be no estoppel against a statute. The court also emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of the 2013 Act and the responsibility of the State to implement the Act and bring about reforms in the existing Public Distribution System as stipulated under Section 12 of the said Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the State of West Bengal was justified in cancelling the declaration of Fair Price Shop vacancies in view of the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the National Food Security Act, 2013, the doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law, and the principle that there can be no estoppel against a statute. It emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of the 2013 Act and the responsibility of the State to implement the Act and bring about reforms in the existing Public Distribution System as stipulated under Section 12 of the said Act.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the judgment of the Division Bench was set aside, restoring the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
JUDGMENT
S. Abdul Nazeer, J. - Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.03.2019 in M.A.T No.1341 of 2018 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 661(W) of 2017. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the State of West Bengal was justified in cancelling the declaration of FPS (Fair Price Shop) vacancies in view of the implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 (for short 2013 Act).
3. Shorn of details, by a Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2014, the vacancy for FPS dealership was declared in the District of Alipurduar. The respondent participated in the selection process and was recommended as a first priority candidate in respect of the said vacancy. However, no final order appointing the respondent was issued by the State Authority. While the application of the respondent was pending, a notification dated 17.08.2015 was issued by the Food and Supplies Department of the State of West Bengal cancelling the declaration of vacancies. This notification was issued in the light of implementation of the 2013 Act, which is as under:
'In view of the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013 in the State, the Governor is pleased to cancel with immediate effect the FPS vacancies notified vide Memo. Nos. 2480/FS/O/Sectt./CSS/7S-16/2013 dated 26.08.2013, 3062-FS/Sectt/Food/4M-04/2013 dated 06.11.2013, 152-FS/Sectt/Food/4M-16/2013 dated 20.01.2014, 540-FS/Sectt/Food/4M-16/2013 dated 04.03.2014 and G-295/FS/Sectt/Food/6F-19/2009 dated 08.01.2015. No further action will be taken in connection with applications received against such vacancies.'
4. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of declaration of vacancies, the respondent moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Calcutta inter alia praying for quashing of the Notification dated 17.08.2015. The State of West Bengal contested the writ petition by filing affidavit in opposition and the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was assailed by the respondent before the Division bench of the Calcutta High Court. This intra Court appeal along with three other matters were taken up by the Division Bench simultaneously and decided finally by a judgment dated 06.03.2019. The Division Bench while deciding the said appeals held that the State of West Bengal has failed to justify the decision to recall the vacancies and that it has acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner, and hence, quashed the Notification dated 17.08.2015. As noticed above, the State of West Bengal and its functionaries have challenged the legality and correctness of the said judgment in this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Notification dated 17.08.2015 was issued in public interest in view of the 2013 Act. Therefore, the plea of legitimate expectation of the respondent is without any basis. It is argued that there is no estoppel against the statute. It is further argued that the Division Bench failed to appreciate that due to the implementation of the 2013 Act, the number of beneficiaries has been reduced in the State at that time after mapping of ration card holders, thus it was no more viable to create or go through with the process of filling up of vacancies. It is urged that the selection shown pursuant to the Notice dated 30.01.2014 does not vest the respondent with any justiciable right to agitate before the Writ Court.
7. However, the learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the judgment of the Division Bench submits that the respondent had participated in the selection process and became successful thereat. The respondent altered the material position to her prejudice, on the basis of the directions issued by the State in terms
The court established that changes in law do not retroactively invalidate applications made under prior rules unless explicitly stated.
The State Control Order, 2013 remains effective and is not rendered redundant by the NFSA, 2013 or TPDS Control Order, 2015 until full implementation of the NFSA is established.
The court upheld the doctrine of legitimate expectation, ruling that failure to honor governmental commitments can render actions arbitrary and justifiable under Article 14, necessitating relief for ....
The court upheld that a review can be granted to an aggrieved individual, including non-parties, if vital amendments affecting the case were not earlier considered.
The court emphasized that the appellants had no legal right to challenge the State's policy decision, as it was taken at the top level of the administrative hierarchy and implemented through the subs....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
