Back
BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Yeasin Molla – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
1. The petitioners are the ration card holders and members of Priority Household under the National Food Security Act, 2015. The instant writ petition is filed according to an assertion made by the petitioners, in representative capacity, on behalf of all ration card holders of West Bengal and accordingly the petitioners seek leave under Rule 12 of the Rules framed by this Court relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The above statement/submission made by the petitioners clearly suggests that they have filed the instant writ petition in representative capacity to protect the interest of all the ration card holders in the State of West Bengal. Therefore, at the outset a question arises as to whether the instant writ petition ought to be treated as a public interest litigation. It is needless to say that a public interest litigation is usually entertained by a Court for the purpose of public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social rights and vindicating public interest. The real purpose of entertaining such
The Central Government has a statutory duty to fix the subsidized price of kerosene oil for consumers under the Public Distribution System, and the delegation of this authority to oil companies was f....
Article 19(1)(g) grants the right to trade, but specific governmental allocations are not guaranteed, allowing the government discretion in policy decisions.
Point of Law : It is not the function or forte of this Court to decide the optimal or competitive price at which diesel should be sold to the petitioner.
Point of Law : Article 300A of the Constitution has no application to Kerosene purchased by a dealer. The grounds raised in the writ petition are mainly based on Article 300A of the Constitution.
When the distribution network of the present petitioner and the respondent no. 3 Society, who has a number of fair price shop retailers under its aegis.
The court upheld the classification in the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, justifying the exclusion of private individuals from running fair price shops due to historical malpractices, wh....
The court established that consumers cannot be charged for interest/carrying costs due to DISCOMS' delayed payments, limiting the special fuel surcharge to the original principal amount only.
The court upheld the validity of amendments regulating the public distribution system, ruling no fundamental rights were violated by limiting fair price shop allotments to three per agency.
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
