The establishment of fair price shops is a policy decision of the State Government; guidelines are not legally binding rights. Existing license holders cannot claim exclusive operation rights in overlapping territories.

ORDER :

1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in the present writ petitions, therefore, the same are being decided by this Court by this common order.

2. The brief facts, as stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13163/2025, are that an advertisement was issued in the year 2000 for allotment of a fair price shop at Ward No.27, Dada Mohalla, Ginani Talab, Nagaur City, which, after delimitation, came to be re-designated as Ward No.28 and subsequently as Ward No.34.

2.1 Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied and was allotted the fair price shop in the year 2000, and since then, he has been operating the same at the aforesaid location. At present, the petitioner caters to about 500 ration card holders enrolled under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’).

2.2 The case of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the respondents have issued an advertisement dated 25.06.2025 proposing establishment of new fair price shops on the recommendations of the local M.L.A. and Minister, which includes a shop at Ward No.34, Dada Mohalla, Ginani Talab, Nagaur City, the very location already allotted to the petitioner in the year 2000.

2.3 The petitioner is aggrieved on the ground that the proposed fair price shop in Ward No.34 would encroach upon and overlap with the area of operation where he is presently running his fair price shop. One additional submission is made by the counsel in this particular writ petition that recommendation for new fair price shop was for Ward No.8, whereas respondents have proposed new fair price shop in Ward No.34.

2.4 In other connected writ petitions, a similar grievance has been raised by the petitioners, contending that being existing license holders of fair price shops, the respondents are arbitrarily proposing to establish new shops in areas already covered by their operations.

3. Learned counsels for the petitioners made the following submissions:-

(i) The action of the respondents in proposing new fair price shops through the impugned advertisement is contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government, particularly those communicated on 07.04.2010, 17.03.2016, 22.10.2019 and 26.12.2019. These guidelines are mandatory in nature and specifically prohibit establishment of a new fair price shop in an area where the number of ration-card holders attached to an existing shop is 500 or less. Therefore, respondent authorities being bound by the said guidelines could not have arbitrarily issued the advertisement in question proposing to establish new fair price shops.

(ii) Before deciding establishment of new fair price shops, the respondents have neither prepared any report nor conducted any study to substantiate the need of new fair price shops. Despite the guidelines of the State Government, even if the power of relaxation is assumed to exist, a proper assessment in respect of each shop is essential to determine whether opening a new shop would serve larger public interest or whether geographical considerations necessitate relaxation of prescribed norms in the aforementioned guidelines.

(iii) The Report of Justice Wadhwa Committee suggests that the minimum consumers must be ensured so that the holder of fair price shops gets reasonable commission, else he would indulge in mal-practices. Therefore, the State should ensure minimum 500 ration-card holders. However, by issuin