Back
BIVAS PATTANAYAK
Setara Begam – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bivas Pattanayak, J.
1. The sole issue raised in the present writ petitions is whether with the promulgation of National Food Security Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘NFSA, 2013’) and Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘TPDS Control Order, 2015’) of the Central Government, the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Control Order, 2013’) has become redundant.
2. Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned advocate for the petitioners in W.P.A. 22281 of 2022, W.P.A. 1098 of 2024, W.P.A. 1101 of 2024, W.P.A. 1217 of 2024, W.P.A. 22283 of 2022, W.P.A. 4615 of 2024, W.P.A. 6466 of 2024 and WPA 6470 of 2024 submitted that Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955’) empowers the Central Government to make rule/order for maintaining, controlling, monitoring, licensing so far as essential commodities are concerned. Section 5 of the Act of 1955 empowers the Central Government to delegate power to the State Government to frame rule/order for exercising power under Section 3 of the Act of 1955 by
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....
A repeal of a Control Order extinguishes existing rights to selection processes under it, establishing that vested rights only arise upon completion of licensing.
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 changes in law do not retroactively invalidate applications made under prior rules unless explicitly stated.
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.
The court ruled that executive instructions cannot override statutory rights and that monopolizing trade through G.O. No. 2976 was unlawful and unconstitutional.
The court stressed the necessity of transparent and fair processes for licensing Fair Price Shops, affirming that government actions must comply with constitutional principles of equality.
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
