AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.2009 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed in limine the writ petition (CWP No. 11248/2009) preferred by the petitioner-appellant.
The appellant, said to be a union of the persons dealing in blue kerosene as authorised dealers of the State, sought to the following reliefs in the writ petition:
That the respondent State Govt. be directed to issue the license to the member of the Petitioner Union for the sale of food articles along with the other essential commodities including blue kerosene.
Any other appropriate relief, as deemed fit, may also be granted to the Petitioner Union.
Costs be awarded.
The learned Single Judge, after considering the law applicable to the case including the provisions of the Rajasthan Food Grains & Other Essential Articles (Regulation & Distribution) Order, 1976 (''the Order of 1976'') pointed out that the members of the petitioner union were authorised only to obtain and supply blue kerosene and, therefore, they cannot claim the authorisation for supply of food grains as a matter of right. The learned Judge observed that if the State Government decides to issue more licenses to operate the fair price shop for supply of food grains in the areas where the members of the petitioner union were operating, they could always apply for the same but the Court cannot issue any direction to the State Government to issue an authorisation to any person for being the wholesale/fair price shop keeper to obtain and supply the food grains and other essential articles in any specified area.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there being no prohibition for the State Government to grant licenses in relation to the articles specified in Schedule I and II of the said Order of 1976, there was no reason that the members of the appellant union were not granted such authorisation; and that the members of the appellant union were otherwise finding it absolutely difficult to carry on with the authorisation for selling blue kerosene only, quantity of supply whereof has also been reduced substantially. The learned Counsel contends that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not issuing directions for grant of authorisation for the food grains to the members of the appellant union. The learned Counsel further submits that the appellant union indeed made a representation in that regard to the State Government but the same has not been responded.
After having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and after having examined the record of the case with reference to the law applicable, we do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to exercise writ jurisdiction in this matter.
Issuance of authorisation under the Order of 1976 is essentially a matter of policy and it is for the State Government to decide as to who will be granted the authorisation for operating the fair price shop and for what commodity. There is no fundamental right in any one to be appointed as an agent of a fair price shop under a Government Scheme.
It is an admitted position that the members of the appellant union were originally issued the licenses for sale of white kerosene and later on, for blue kerosene. Even if the Schedules appended to the Order of 1976 refer to various commodities whose supply is regulated through the authorisation holders, we are unable to find any legal right in any such authorisation holder for any commodity/commodities, whereby he could ask for issuance of authorisation for other commodities in the name of reduction of quantity of the commodity dealt with by him. We concur with the learned Single Judge that no mandamus can be issued by the Court so as to direct the State Government to consider the claim of the members of the appellant union for issuance of authorisation for any particular commodity. The learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere in the matter.
So far the representation allegedly made by the appellant union is concerned, having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the representation as made to the State Government is still pending and has not been decided, we consider it appropriate to observe that if any such representation has been filed and is pending consideration then, irrespective of the orders passed by this Court in this matter, such representation shall be decided in accordance with law.
With the observations aforesaid, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.