2023 Supreme(Cal) 1289
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Yeasin Molla & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
WPA No. 9735 of 2022
Decided On : 12-09-2023
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala, Mr. Kumar Gupta, Ms. Nibedita Pal, Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee, Ms. Sonam Ray.
For the Respondents: Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar Nag, Mr. Partha Banerjee, Mr. Sanajit Ghosh, Mr. Rivu Dutta, Mr. Rhitam Chatterjee, Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Mr. Arka Kumar.
IMPORTANT POINT
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 found to be unreasonable, illegal, and violative of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - National Food Security Act - 1993 Control Order, 2015 Targeted Public Distribution System - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [1993 Control Order, 2015 Targeted Public Distribution System]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, as ration card holders, challenged the soaring price of kerosene oil under the Public Distribution System (PDS) in a representative capacity. They sought a writ to command the Central Government to frame guidelines for fixing the price of kerosene transparently and cap the price at the February 2022 level until the guideline is framed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' challenge to the price of an essential commodity distributed through the PDS was maintainable. It held that the Central Government had a statutory obligation to declare the price of PDS kerosene and that the petitioners' plea was justifiable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Central Government's delegation of authority to oil marketing companies to fix the price of PDS kerosene was unreasonable, illegal, and violative of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Central Government's failure to fix the price of kerosene within the reach of the poor people, and the decision to transfer the pricing system to oil companies, was unreasonable, illegal, and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court directed the Central Government to adopt a policy decision for fixing the subsidized price of kerosene oil for consumers and instructed the State Government to impose minimum taxes, cess, and duties to ensure the selling price is affordable for the poorest citizens.
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 application is the vindication of the Rule of Law, effective access to justice for the economically weaker classes and meaningful realization of fundamental rights. Above observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malik Borthers vs. Narendra Dadhich & Ors reported in (1999) 6 SCC 552. In People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Ors. vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1982 SC 1473, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that public interest litigation is essentially a cooperative or collaborative effect on the part of the petitioner, the State or public authority and the Court to secure observance of the constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges conferred upon the vulnerable sections of the community and to reach social justice to them. The State or public authority against whom public interest litigation is brought should be as much interested in ensuring basic human rights, constitutional as well as legal, as those who are in a socially and economically disadvantage position, as the petitioner who initiates the litigation. The State or public authority should, in fact welcome it, as it would give an opportunity to right a wrong or to redress and injustice done to the poor and weaker sections of the community whose welfare is and must be the prime concern of the State or the public authority.
3. Bearing the above principle in mind it is possible to decide that the instant writ petition should be dealt with as a public interest litigation.
4. In the instant writ petition the petitioners have challenged the reasonableness of soaring price of kerosene oil under Public Distribution System. In my considered opinion the petitioners can challenge fixation of price of an essential commodity even without filing a public interest litigation, on the plea that the entire concept of Public Distribution System was envisaged to distribute essential commodities which are specifically stated in the schedule, in a subsidized price to financially downtrodden people so that they can live their life with dignity. If price of any essential commodity which is distributed through Public Distribution System is constitutionally on the rise making the same, out of the reach of the petitioners, they can approach the constitutional court for issuance of prerogative list.
5. Thus, I hold that the instant writ petition is maintainable in its present form and law.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the Central Government made and published the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 (hereafter referred to as the 1993 Control Order)
7. Clause 2(d) of 1993 Control Order defines declared prices as:-
“(d) “declared price” in relation to kerosene sold under the public distribution system, means the maximum selling price decl