JUDGMENT :

S. MEHTA, J.

1. The instant bunch of intra-Court writ appeals, led by W.A. No. 51/2023, takes exception to the judgment and final order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting a bunch of writ petitions, led by W.P. (C) No. 5470/2021 (Bijoy Bora and Another vs. State of Assam and Others), involving identical controversy and issues.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

3. The appellants herein (writ petitioners) were granted licences for operating Fair Price Shops (‘FPS’ for short) in different districts of the State of Assam. Each licence holder (appellants herein) was having 50 or less than 50 ration cards attached to the respective FPS. A communication dated 30.05.2020 came to be issued by the Assistant Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, requiring the appellants/writ petitioners to attach their FPS to the nearest FPS having more than 50 ration cards tagged to it or to surrender their licences within three days of receiving such notice. Another Notification dated 07.08.2021 came to be issued by the Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Department of Government of Assam, with the direction that the ration cards of those FPS having 50 or less than 50 ration cards would be attached to the nearest FPS having more than 50 ration cards.

The appellants filed the above mentioned bunch of writ petitions for challenging the communication dated 30.05.2020 and the notification dated 07.08.2021 on numerous grounds amongst others which can be briefly enumerated herein-below:

(i) that the implementation of the impugned communication/notification would lead to violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners/writ appellants guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It would also be against the directive principles of State policy enshrined in Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) That there is no reasonableness in classification of FPS into two categories, one- having more than 50 ration cards and the other having less than 50 ration cards. The policy decision so taken is absolutely illegal and violative of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the rights of the citizens under the chapter pertaining to the fundamental rights.

(iii) That the State Government cannot unilaterally, in the name of policy decision, encroach upon the policy decision of the Central Government in making the One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC) applicable throughout the country. As per the appellant/writ petitioners, under the said scheme of the Central Government, there is no proposal to make a distinction/classification qua FPS on the basis of number of ration cards.

4. The respondents filed their affidavits-in-opposition to the writ petitions supporting the decision of the State to close down the FPS having 50 or less than 50 ration cards. It is stated in the affidavit that as per the National Food Security Act, 2013, the State Government is primarily responsible to ensure supply of free/concessional food grains to the poor and needy beneficiaries and not for ensuring the financial gains/employment to the FPS dealers. The decision to close down the FPS having 50 or less than 50 ration cards and to tag the respective cardholders to the nearest FPS having more than 50 ration cards does not affect the beneficiaries in any manner. The decision aforestated was sought to be justified on the ground that the same will minimise the total project cost for FPS automation. It was further stated in the affidavits that the policy decision has been formulated for ensuring smooth/uninterrupted food supply to the needy and entitled persons rather than having focused on employment generation. Thus, there is no obligation of the State to take a policy decision for protecting the interests of the FPS owners. The policy decision focused on minimising the total project cost for implementation of FPS automation which is necessary to introduce the