MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Sushil Harkauli, Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Sai Kripa Gramin Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Nainpur - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P.& Ors. - Respondent
W.P. No. 3487-2010
Decided On : 16-12-2011
Public Distribution System - Challenge to Clauses of Control Order 2009 - [M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009] - Clauses 4, 5(3), 6
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Cooperative Society, challenged the validity of clauses 4, 5(3), and 6 of the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009. The petitioner argued that the classification of societies for running fair price shops was arbitrary and discriminatory, and the clauses were in conflict with the Public Distribution System, 2001 framed by the Central Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the classification of societies for fair price shops was based on intelligible differentia and had a reasonable nexus with the object of ensuring timely distribution of essential commodities. The court rejected the challenge to the clauses and dismissed the writ petitions.
Issues: Validity of clauses 4, 5(3), and 6 of the Control Order 2009, classification of societies for fair price shops, conflict with the Public Distribution System, 2001
Ratio Decidendi: The classification of societies for fair price shops must be based on intelligible differentia and have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The principle of estoppel does not operate against the law, and the State Government is not bound by any assurance regarding the policy of fair price shop allotment.
Final Decision: The court found no merit in the writ petitions and dismissed them. However, petitioners were granted liberty to challenge the cancellation of fair price shop licenses on merits.
Alok Aradhe, J.:-
In this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of clauses 4,5(3) and 6 of Annexure-II appended to Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "Control Order 2009"). In order to appreciate the petitioners' challenge to the aforesaid clauses of the Control Order 2009, reference to few facts need mention.
2. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of M.P Cooperative Societies Act? 1960 (for short 1960 Act'). The petitioner is classified under section 10 of the 1960 Act as consumer society. The petitioner is engaged in the business of distribution of food stuff under the Public Distribution System. The petitioner has been granted licence to run the fair price shops in urban as well as rural areas. In exercise of powers under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the State Government has framed M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009 Clause 4 of the aforesaid Control Order 2009 provides that in urban areas no cooperative society shall be allotted more than one fair price shop Clause 5(3) thereof provides that in rural area marketing societies or the primary agricultural cooperative societies shall be appointed as the leading societies. Clause 6 of the Control Order 2009 provide that fair price shops in rural areas shall be allotted to primary agricultural cooperative societies and Laghu Vanopaj Sahakari Samiti, a society registered under the provisions of 1960 Act
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of the State Government in grouping the societies, namely, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies and Laghu Vanopaj Sahakari Samiti together to exclusion of other societies for running the fair price shops in the rural areas is arbitrary and discriminatory. The classification has no reasonable nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved. The exclusion of other cooperative societies to run fair price shops in rural areas offends constitutional guarantee contained in Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The validity of the impugned clauses of the Control Order 2009 has also been assailed on the ground that same are in direct conflict with the Public Distribution System, 2001 framed by the Central Government. It is urged that action of the State Government in discontinuing the fair price shops which are being run by the societies for past several years is not justified. It is further urged that acting on the assurance given by the State Government the petitioners got themselves registered as cooperative societies. The State Government is bound by the doctrine of estoppel. Our attention has been invited to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.8810/2005. In support of aforesaid submissions reliance has been placed on the cases of Vij Resins Pvt. Ltd. v. State of J and K, (1989) 3 SCC115 and State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v Orient Paper Mills Ltd., (1990) 1 SCC 176.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the State Government is under a constitutional obligation to protect the poor persons against malnutrition and hunger. In the light of orders passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Civil Case No. 196/2001 dated 28.11.2001, 08.5.2002 and 02.5.2003 and to ensure compliance of Directive Principles of State Policy, the State Government has framed Control Order 2009. The classification of the societies to run the fair price shops is valid classification and the same is based on intelligible differentia. It cannot be termed either arbitrary or discriminatory. In fact, the classification of the societies to run the fair price shops in rural areas has been done in public interest. It is further submitted that primary agriculture cooperative societies and Laghu Vanopaj Sahkari Societies are the cooperative societies which are basically controlled and operated through organized structure
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.