OWP Nos.842/2017 along with nine other cases

Page 1 of 15

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

OWP No.842/2017, MP No.1/2017

OWP No.843/2017, MP No.1/2017

OWP No.848/2017, Mp No.1/2017

OWP No.860/2017, MP No.1/2017

OWP No.869/2017 MP No.1/2017

OWP No.870/2017, MP No.1/2017

OWP No.871/2017, Mp No.1/2017

OWP No.876/2017, MP No.1/2017

OWP No.1885/2016, Mp No.1/2016

OWP No.687/2017, MP No.1/2017

Date of order: 27.07.2017

1.

Ch. Makhan

v

State of J&K and others.

2.

Abdul Karim

v

State of J&K and others.

3.

Roshan Din and anr.

v

State of J&K and others.

4.

Kewal Singh

v

State of J&K and others.

5.

Chatter Singh

v

State of J&K and others.

6.

Abdul Haq

v

State of J&K and others.

7.

Shub Kumar Puri

v.

State of J&K and others.

8.

Ch. Noor Hussain

v.

State of J&K and others.

9.

Younis Rashid and ors.

v

State of J&K and others.

10.

Fair Price Shop Dealers of

v.

State of J&K and others.

Tehsil Mahanpura/Billawar and Basholi

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge

Appearing counsel:

For the Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Aseem Sawhney, Advocate.

Mr. N.D.Qazi, Advocate.

Mr. Waseem Akram, Advocate.

For the Respondents(s)

: Mrs. Seema Shekhar, Sr. AAG.

i/

Whether to be reported in

:

Yes

Press/Media

ii/

Whether to be reported in

:

Yes

Digest/Journal

OWP Nos.842/2017, 843/2017, 848/2017, 860/2017, 869/2017, 870/2017,

871/2017 & 876/2017

1.

The petitioners in all these writ petitions claim to have

been appointed as Fair Price Dealers by the department of

Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department on

different dates, for different areas of different districts. The

petitioners further claim that they have been serving the public

of the areas for which they have been appointed for the last

several years with an unblemished record and now at this age

when the petitioners have either become over aged or likely to

OWP No.842/2017 along with nine other cases

Page 2 of 15

become as such, their livelihood has been put at stake by the

respondents, who are contemplating to either replace the

petitioners or to appoint new dealers for the areas, which are

presently fed by them. They, therefore, submit that the

respondents have already set the process in motion for

bifurcating the dealership/Fair Price Rationees/RTs of the

petitioners for extraneous and political considerations. The

petitioners further submit that appointment of new dealers in the

areas of the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and has the effect of

depriving the petitioners of their fundamental right to livelihood.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are going ahead for appointment of

new dealers to the detriment of the petitioners without even

putting the petitioners to show cause notice or holding any

enquiry into the matter.

2.

The petitioners further claim that they have learnt that the

government in terms of the impugned Annexure-A to Govt.

Order No.137-FCS& CA of 2016 dated 02.09.2016 has directed

the opening of new Fair Price Shops by taking out some ration

tickets of the petitioners, which action of the government, argue

learned counsels for the petitioners, is violative of Govt. Order

No.127-FCS & CA of 2016 dated 04.08.2016. It is, thus,

contended that as per the policy governing the appointment of

new ration dealers/Fair Price Shop Dealers as contained in

Govt. Order dated 04.08.2016, a new Fair Price Shop is to be

OWP No.842/2017 along with nine other cases

Page 3 of 15

opened for every 250 Ration Tickets providing further that

existing Fair Price Shop