IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.

IN THE MATTER OF WPA 27453 of 2024 All Bengal Fair Price Shop Dealers’ Welfare Association & Anr.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Mr. Subhankar Das, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. Adv.Gen.

Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Ld. Sr. -

Standing Counsel., Md. Ritesh Kr. Ganguly Adv.

Reserved on : 16.07.2025 Judgment on : 26.09.2025 Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered recognised association of fair price shop owners all over West Bengal and petitioner No. 2 is the general secretary of petitioner No. 1 and is a Fair Price Shop Owner. Petitioner’s challenge the constitutional validity of West Bengal targeted Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2024, (shall referred to as “State control order 2024” hereinafter) as ultra viers to the provisions of Constitution of India.

2. Learned Advocate General appears on behalf of the State and raised point of maintainability. It is the submission of Learned Advocate General that a writ petition is not maintainable by a person who is not aggrieved. The association or the General Secretary of the association cannot be considered as an aggrieved party. Ld. Advocate General, further submits that association does not itself hold a FPS license under Control Order 2024. It is further argued that a writ petitioner can be said to be aggrieved only when any of his legal right is denied by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something.

3. Learned Advocate General further argued that in the instant case no infringement of any legal right has been pleaded by the association due to operation of State Control Order, 2024, furthermore, writ petitioner, being an association, have no legal right whatsoever and therefore there is no question of infringement of their legal right. In support of this contention Ld. Advocate General cited :-

1. Siliguri Inter District Minibus Owner’s Association Vs. Bijon Krishna Bhowmick 1992 SCC Online Cal

217

2. Cable Operators’ Association of Tamizagam Vs.

Comissioner of Police/Authorised Officer, Greater Chennai, 2011 SCC Online Mad 680= (2011) 4 CTC

369

3. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254

4. Leaned Advocate General further raised point of maintainability on a further ground that State control order, 2024 is a subordinate legislation and there is very remote scope to interfere by the writ court. Learned Advocate General submits that the State Government is empowered under Entry 33 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, read with Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution of India, to frame rules regarding the trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils. Furthermore, Articles 39 and 47 of the Constitution of India also impose a duty upon the State Government to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and to improve public health. He submits, Section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the EC Act”) is the fountainhead of all the powers for framing guidelines in connection with the maintenance and regulation of essential commodities or for securing their distribution and availability at fair prices to the masses. Section 5 of the EC Act deals with the delegation of powers in favour of the State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government. Section 3 read with Section 5 of the EC Act empowers the Government of India to delegate the power to the State Government, by way of issuing Notification, to issue Orders including the Control Orders under Section 3 of the EC Act, in relation to such matter and subject to the conditions, if any, specified in the said Notification.

5. Learned Advocate General further argued The Go