Back
2014 Supreme(Ori) 387
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
AMITAVA ROY, A.K. RATH, JJ.
Man Mohan Das & others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Orissa & others - Opp. Parties
W.P(C) No.12005 of 2014
Decided on: 26.11.2014
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioners:Mr. Chandrakanta Nayak, Advocate
For Opp. Parties:Mr. R. Mohapatra, Govt. Advocate
The judgment establishes the principle that economic policies and decisions, including the abolition of intermediary systems, are not ordinarily amenable to judicial review unless they contravene statutory provisions or the Constitution.
Headnote:
Notification - Abolition of Sub-wholesalership of Superior Kerosene Oil - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 - The judgment discusses the abolition of sub-wholesalership of Superior Kerosene Oil in Orissa, based on the recommendation of the Justice Wadha Committee and the amendments made in the OPDS Order, 2008. The court analyzes the constitutional validity of the OPDS Amendment Order, 2013 in relation to Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and concludes that the provisions are reasonable restrictions and not violative of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, sub-wholesalers of Superior Kerosene Oil in Orissa, challenged the abolition of sub-wholesalership through a notification issued by the Government. They argued that the notification violated Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the abolition of sub-wholesalership was based on the recommendation of the Justice Wadha Committee and the conscious policy decision of the State Government. It held that the OPDS Amendment Order, 2013 did not violate Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Constitutional validity of the abolition of sub-wholesalership and the OPDS Amendment Order, 2013 in relation to Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the tests of reasonableness and reasonable classification to determine the constitutionality of the OPDS Amendment Order, 2013. It found that the provisions were reasonable restrictions and not violative of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The writ petition challenging the abolition of sub-wholesalership and the OPDS Amendment Order, 2013 was dismissed by the court.
Judgment
Dr. A.K. Rath, J.
The petitioners are the sub-wholesalers of Superior Kerosene Oil (“S.K Oil”, in short) in different districts of Orissa. They are aggrieved by the Notification No.18749 dated 31.10.2013 issued by the Government of Odisha, Food, Supplies & Consumer Welfare Department, vide Annexure-1, whereby and whereunder the system of sub-wholesalership has been abolished.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that pursuant to the licence issued by the appropriate authority, the petitioners were appointed as sub-wholesalers of S.K Oil in different districts. They made applications for renewal of the licence, but the same was not renewed in view of the impugned notification, vide Annexure-1.
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.1. The sum and substance of the case of the opposite party no.1 is that the system of sub-wholesalership of S.K Oil has been abolished in respect of 25 districts of the State with effect from 1.6.2014. Presently, the S.K. Oil is being supplied directly by the wholesalers to the Fair Price Shops (“FPS”, in short). The system of sub-wholesalership was abolished pursuant to the recommendation of the Justice Wadha Committee. The same was first implemented in five districts of the State on pilot basis with effect from 1.7.2013. It is further stated that the notification, vide Annexure-1, has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with paragraph 5 of the Annexure to the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and notifications of Government of India issued from time to time. Since the process of election was started in respect of Lok Sabha and State Assembly, 2014, the validity date of renewal of licence had been extended upto 31.5.2014 as it was felt that for direct delivery of S.K. Oil by the wholesalers to retailers might create dislocations in middle of the election process and possibility of attracting model code of conduct. Therefore, the impact of the Odisha Public Distribution System (Control) Amendment Order, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the OPDS Amendment Order, 2013”) was deferred by two months in respect of 25 districts of the State. Accordingly, instructions were issued on 28.2.2014 with clear direction for renewal of licence of S.K. Oil sub-wholesalers of 25 districts upto 31.5.2014 and also arrangement to be initiated for distribution of S.K. Oil directly by the wholesalers to the retailers. It is further stated that by order dated 13.3.2014 passed in WP(C) No.8202 of 2013, it is held that extension of licence of S.K. Oil sub-wholesalers of 25 districts upto 31.5.2014 was due to impending election process and accordingly direction was issued to abolish S.K. Oil sub-wholesalership in 25 districts after election process was over. Accordingly, the State Government abolished the S.K. Oil subwholesalership in 25 districts. It is further stated that as per the report of the Justice Wadhwa Committee, the intermediary system in the distribution chain, i.e. storage agent in respect of food grains has been abolished. Further, in consonance with the recommendation of the said Committee, the sub-wholesalers in respect of S.K. Oil has also been abolished, which has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 24.4.2013 passed in WP(C) No.18522 of 2012.
4. Heard Mr. Nayak, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate.
5. Mr. Nayak, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submits that the impugned notification is violative of Article 14 as well as Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. To elaborate his submission, Mr. Nayak submits that the petitioners have legitimate expectations of carrying on their businesses. The system was abolished without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further submits that the impugned notification has no nexus with the object
