Can't Issue A Mandamus Directing State To Pay A Minimum Support Price (MSP) For An Agricultural Crop: Patna HC [Read Order]

The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar was hearing a plea moved by the Petitioner (in the public interest) praying that the direction be issued for the State to fix a Minimum Support Price for procuring the agricultural crop, i.e. maize, which is lying in abundance in the State of Bihar.

The Department of Food and Civil Supply opposed the petition, inter alia, on the ground that procurement of particular crop is a policy matter and since the Godowns of the Food Corporation of India are likely to be filled up with other category of food-grains to be procured, any decision for fixing the Minimum Support Price would be contrary to the public interest and against the policy.

Court's Observations

The Court observed that the principles governing the scope of judicial review in the matter of price fixation are now well settled.

1. It is open to the Government to fix such price as it thinks appropriate having regard to the public interest.

2. Judicial Scrutiny is far less in cases where price fixation has its origins in non-statutory materials.

3. Principles of natural justice would not be applicable and judicial review would be limited to the plea of violation of Article 14.

Also, with regard to Price Fixation where Statutory provision is present, the Court relied on the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd., (1987) 2 SCC 720, wherein it was held that "Price fixation is neither the function nor the forte of the court".

Further, with regard to Price Fixation in the absence of Statutory provision, the Court relied on the Apex Court's ruling in the Case of Rayalaseema Paper Mills Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P., (2003) 1 SCC 341, wherein it was held that,

"Where the legislature has prescribed the factors which should be taken into consideration and which should guide the determination of price, the courts would examine whether the considerations for fixing the price mentioned in the statute or the statutory order have been kept in mind while fixing the price and whether these factors have guided the determination. The courts would not go beyond that point"

Court's final view

The Court said that the State placed on record the revised guidelines for distribution of coarse grains, including the maize amongst the beneficiaries, termed as "Targeted Public Distribution System or MDM/ICDS Scheme".

The Court remarked,

"Whether the decision is in terms of the said policy, statute or not, we need not go into same. Nothing is brought to our notice indicating the policy or the action of the respondents to be violative of Article 14/21 of the Constitution of India."

Lastly, the Court said,

"Only for the reason that this year in the State of Bihar, the crop of maize is in excess than the previous year, cannot be a reason for this Court to issue a mandamus directing the State to procure the food-grains i.e. maize under the Minimum Support Price, so fixed with respect to other items of food-grains."