JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, J.:- All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside a policy decision taken by the government of Himachal Pradesh and for an appropriate direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue to distribute fertilizers and sugar in accordance with the earlier decisions and practice till the impugned decision was taken. Other reliefs have also been prayed.

2. To understand the controversy raised in the present group of petitions, it may be proper if the facts in the first petition (CWP No.727 of 2000) may be noted. It is the case of the petitioner that it is registered society with respondents under the Fertilizer Control order, 1985 and Fertilizer Movement Control Order, 1973. It is doing business as Sub Wholesalers under the above Control Orders since the date of its registration. It is asserted by the petitioner that its working is to the complete satisfaction of the authorities and there was no complaint against the work or conduct of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the above Control orders were issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955. the underlying object of the said orders was to secure equitable distribution of fertilizers in several States in India. As per the say of the petitioner, it is a registered dealer and is functioning as such. A licence was issued in favour of the petitioner, which was renewed from time to time and even today it is operative. According to the petitioner Sub Whole Sale Dealer was appointed after application of mind by the authorities inasmuch as it would benefit general public and such agency would be appropriate for smooth distribution of fertilizers to the inhabitants of the society. It would also prevent chaos in distribution of essential commodity.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that a communication was addressed to the Managing Director. HIMFED, Shimla by the Director of Agriculture on 17th August, 2000 (Annexure P-2) on the subject of Fertilizers Distribution System -Abolition of Second Tier i.e. Sub Whole Sale from the distribution system. It was stated that as per the policy decision taken by the Government, the existing three tier system of the fertilizer distribution system had been modified and the middle tier i.e. sub whole sale dealer had been abolished from the fertilizer distribution system. It was observed that the distribution margin, which was admissible for sub whole sale shall now be passed on to HIMFED and farmers equally i.e. 50:5.0, thereby catising reduction in fertilizer price. With the said decision, the fertilizer distribution system would become efficient and unnecessary expenditure on loading/unloading and transport would also be avoided. The decision was to be implemented with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the said communication/order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. In CWP No.735 of 2000, CWP No.882 of 2000 and CWP No.982 of 2000 also, the above policy decision is challenged.

5. In CWP No.734 of 2000, a similar decision dated 29th April, 2000, discontinuing sub wholesalers in distribution of Sugar is challenged. The Managing director of Himachal Pradesh State civil Supplies Corporation, respondent No.3 herein vide above letter informed the Area Managers of Himachal Pradesh State civil Supplies corporation Ltd. Shimla/Solan/Nar han/Mandi/Dharamshala/Chamba (annexure P/3) inviting their attention to an office telegram dated 24th April, 2000, wherein it had been intimated that no sub wholesalers margin be paid till further orders. It was also stated that the Corporation had received payment of sub wholesalers margin from the State government unto January, 1999 and from February, 1999 to April, 2000, it was recoverable from the Department, for which no budget had been kept by the State Government in the year 2000-2001. Then, it was stated; "In view of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document