The court upheld the policy allowing a new Fair Price Shop due to population growth, affirming that the petitioner could retain only 250 rationees as per guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner prays quashing of Order no.39-FCS&CA/AD-Kgm of 2018 dated 20^th March 2018 issued by respondents. He seeks to restrain respondents from issuing formal licence and supplying ration in pursuance of impugned order in favour of private respondent. Respondents are also sought to be directed to strictly comply with policy guidelines vis-à-vis opening of New Fair Price Shops under public distribution system.

2. Reply/objections have been filed by respondents.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

4. Petitioner was given licence to run Fair Price Shop in the year 2003 with respect to the area of Kraloo Kund Village of District Kulgam vide Order no.400-DCA&PD of 2003 dated 24^th October 2003. According to petitioner there is no feasibility to open New Fair Price Shop in the catchment area serviced by petitioner. Earlier, petitioner filed OWP no.1581/2016, to prohibit official respondents from opening New Fair Price Shop in the locality of Kraloo Kund, Kulgam. In that petition, status quo order dated 29^th December 2016 was passed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner states that impugned order is in violation of policy guidelines qua opening of New Fair Price Shops as the area in which petitioner provides services, viz. village Kraloo, consists of 305 beneficiaries and remaining beneficiaries are from another village Pachgam and under the policy guidelines new Fair Price Shop cannot be opened for Kraloo Kund Kulgam. According to learned counsel for petitioner, new Fair Price Shop can be opened for every 250 rationees, but existing fair price shop holder will retain more rationees if there is no feasibility of opening second Fair Price Shop, i.e., there can be upto 499 rationees with a Fair Price Shop, therefore, impugned order is against the policy guidelines.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents states that petitioner has been given licence way back in the year 2003 and since then there has been manifold increase in population, thus, there was a need to increase facility of public distribution more particularly in view of implementation of National Food Safety Act; the policy has been revised in order to achieve the desired objectives, but petitioner is trying to restrain respondents from increasing the distribution facility to the public by establishment of a fresh Fair Price Shop/Sale Centre, just to create monopoly in the area. According to him, establishment of new fair price shops is governed and regulated in terms of Government Order no.127-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 4^th August 2016 and approval for opening new Fair Price Shop in a locality is granted only after fulfilling all conditions as laid down in the said order and after assessing the feasibility. Grant of licence in favour of private respondent has been approved by competent authority to establish Fair Price Shop at Kraloo Muminabad Devsat District Kulgam after selection process was conducted in accordance with Government Order no.127-FCS&CA of 2017 and approval was conveyed vie Order No.FCS&CA/ FPS/191/ 2017 dated 26^th December 2017. It is also stated by him that impugned licence does not affect requisite number of 250 ration tickets allotted to petitioner as per policy. Feasibility Report of 2020 cannot be read and interpreted to mean a report of 2018, which petitioner has tried to do.

7. Counsel for private respondent no.5 would say that respondent no.5 has been given licence after fulfilment of policy guidelines. He states that petitioner cannot retain more than 250 rationees. Reference is being given to communication dated 19^th December 2016, in which Tehsil Supply Officer, Circle Chowgam, has reported that village consists of 46 and 216 souls under AAY RTS, under BPL RTS 62 and 297 souls, PHH RTS 137 and 514 and NPHH RTS 142 and 537 souls, in total RTS 387 with 1564 souls and that petitioner cannot retain more than 250 rationees.

8. Impugned order dated 20^th March 2018 reveals that approval has been given by Ad