SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 34

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Prashant Mishra, J
Ambika Prasad Rajwade and Other. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Writ Petition No. 445 of 2005 | Writ Petition No. 578 of 2005 | Writ Petition No. 1034 of 2005 | Writ Petition No. 1518 of 2005 | Writ Petition No. 2150 of 2005 | Writ Petition No. 2316 of 2005 | Writ Petition No. 1397 of 2005 | Writ Petition No. 2600 of 2005



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, Mr. Ali Asgar, Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Mr. Amrito Das, Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Mr. Yashwant Tiwari, Mr. Sudhir Verma
For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Mishra, Mr. Sumesh Bajaj

The court upheld the classification in the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, justifying the exclusion of private individuals from running fair price shops due to historical malpractices, while emphasizing the need for equitable distribution of essential commodities.

Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 3(1) and Section 5 - Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 - Cancellation of fair price shop licenses issued to private individuals based on legal provisions and precedence of cooperative societies - The state government acted within its authority to regulate distribution to secure fairness in supply. (Paras 4, 16, 24, 44)

(B) Discrimination and Equal Protection - Assertion that exclusion of private persons from running fair price shops violates Article 14 of the Constitution - Court upheld the classification made by the Order 2004, finding rational basis for such exclusion due to past malpractices by private entities; thus constitutionally valid. (Paras 5, 12, 18, 44)

(C) Contractual Obligations - The cancellation of agreements with private individuals is due to supervening change in law rather than breach of contract, rendering agreements void as per Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1870. (Paras 4, 44)

Facts of the case:
Individuals contested their license cancellations for running fair price shops, asserting their agreements barred termination except on breach, challenged the Public Distribution System Order as discriminatory.

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the legality of the state order prioritizing cooperative societies over private individuals for fair price shop operations due to historical inefficiencies and irregularities associated with private operators.

Issues: The court assessed the legality of the Order 2004, its constitutionality under Article 14, and the implications of contract law on existing agreements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it permits reasonable classification for legislative aims. The state decision to exclude private players is justified by prior operational failures, consistent with constitutional goals.

Result: Writ petitions partially allowed, certain provisions declared unconstitutional, yet the primary exclusion remained valid.

Table of Content
1. introduction of relevant laws and orders. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments against cancellation of licenses. (Para 3 , 5 , 6)
3. analysis on cancellation due to change in law. (Para 4 , 8 , 9)
4. discrimination claims under article 14. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. legal tests for article 14 compliance. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. conclusion on fairness of legislative actions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. obligations and future of fair price shops. (Para 19 , 24)
8. limitations on governmental action as per law. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 38)
9. reservation policies under scrutiny. (Para 26 , 27 , 29 , 33)
10. final rulings and directions. (Para 40 , 41)

1. All these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relate to the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") the Central Government has been vested with the power to make orders providing for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodity and trade and commerce therein if the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The Central Government delegated this power to the State Governments under Section 5 of the Act by an order dated 9th of June, 1978 in relation to food stuffs subject to such conditions as specified in the said order. On 23rd of June 2001 the State Government of Chhattisgarh made the Chhattisgarh (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajanik Nagrik Poorti Vitran Scheme, 2001 in exercise of such delegated power under of the Act for distribution of different food stuffs through fair price shops. Pursuant to said Scheme of 2001, the State Government entered into agreements with the petitioners and also issued licences in favour of the petitioners for running fair price shops at different places in the State of Chhattisgarh. On 31st of August, 2001 the Central Government made the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 under of the Act providing for distribution of food grains through fair price shops and provided therein that the State Government shall issue an order under of the Act for regulating the sale and distribution of essential commodities and shall issue the licences to the fair price shop owner under the said order laying down the duties and responsibilities of the fair price shop owners. Accordingly, the State Government made a fresh order under of the Act by a notification dated 23rd of December, 2004 called the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 (for short the Order 2004). Clause 9 (1) of the Order 2004 makes provisions regarding allocation of fair price shops in the State of Chhattisgarh and is extracted hereunder :
"9. Allocation of fair price shops
(1) Fair Price Shop run by Large Aadim Jati Multipurpose Co-operative Societies (LAMPS), Primary credit co-operative societies, forest protection committees, self help groups, Gram Panchayats and other co-operative societies shall be continued but not run by the private persons. Within six months from commencement of this Order, Fair Price Shops run by the private persons shall be cancelled and allotted to the specified agencies mentioned in sub-rules (3) and (4) of rule 9".
In accordance with provisions of Clause 9(1) of the Order 2004, quoted above, the licences issued to the petitioners are proposed to be cancelled and the fair price shops are proposed to be allotted to agencies specified in the said Order 2004. Aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the provisions of the Order 2004 on different grounds and/or the orders of the authorities proposing to cancel the licences of the petitioners for running the fair price shops.



3. Mr. Prashant Jay









































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top