Fair Price Shops Must Enable Access For Impoverished Classes And Ensure Distribution To All Citizens In Speedy, Cheap Manner: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that the object and purpose of establishing a fair price shop is to enable the citizens of the country to have easy access to fair price shops, more so, when the ration card holders belong to the impoverished class of society and many of them are below the poverty line.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by Mahatma Gandhiji Grama Hitha Mandali, a fair price shop questioning the government's decision to start another shop in the same village.

The court said, “The purpose and purport of the Control Order, 2016 is not to encourage monopoly by way of issuance of authorisation to one particular fair price shop, but to see that distribution of all the articles are made to all the concerned citizens in a speedy and cheaper manner.”

The petitioner claimed that he was not issued notice or heard before issuing the impugned notification and if the new fair price depot is allowed to open the number of cardholders attached to his fair price shop would get reduced, thereby affecting the business of the petitioner.

Referring to Rule 11 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 it was said unless a request has been made to the existing authorised fair price shop by the general citizen, no such transfer could be made and no such notification could have been issued.

The Government contended that on receiving a representation from the villagers the order was issued. The number of cardholders attached to the shop of the petitioner according to her is more than 1200 and as such, a minimum of 500 cardholders will continue to remain attached to the fair price shop as mandated under Rule 11 (2) of the Control Order, 2016. Thus there would be no adverse impact on the operation of the petitioner.

Findings:

The court said “In terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Control Order, 2016, the minimum guaranteed number of cardholders in a rural area is 500. Even accepting the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, the number of cards attached to the petitioner's fair price shop is double the minimum guaranteed number.”

Then it held “I am of the opinion that there cannot be a monopoly or a vested right in favour of the petitioner to continue or retain all the cardholders in the petitioner's fair price shop.”

It noted that the period of authorisation is fixed and once the period expires, it is for the authorities to issue fresh notification inviting applications and allot the licences as per the applicable law.

The court said that there is no vested right or interest created in favour of the petitioner to continue retention of all the cardholders in the fair price shop being run by him.

It added, “The respondent authorities are well within their rights in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Control Order, 2016 to establish further fair price shops so long as the minimum numbers of 500 cards are attached to each such shop in a rural area.”

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Nagaraja N Naidu, Advocate for Petitioner.

AGA Shivakumar R. Tengli, for R1 to R3.

Advocate Sanganabasava B. Patil, for R4

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 380

Case Title: Mahathma Gandhiji Grama Hitha Mandali AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.202758 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order