Ravinder Kumar and another vs State of Haryana and another

Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.—This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking directions from the Court for reconsideration of the Excise Policy of the year 2011-12, particularly, in respect of the clause which permits sub-vending. According to the petitioners the provision permitting sub-vending has been grossly misused by the vendors as no definite criteria or policy is available for opening of sub-vends and such sub-vends have been set-up in many places including tractors, tents, pull-carts etc. etc.

At the very outset, we had inquired from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to the occupation of the petitioners and their source of livelihood to which it has been replied that they are factory workers. The said fact has cast a serious doubt as to the bona fide of the present PIL, namely, whether the petitioners have been propped up by some other interested persons.

Be that as it may, the provision of sub-vending, according to the learned Additional Advocate General who has appeared in the case, has been continued under the new policy effective from 1.4.2012. In this regard our attention is specifically drawn to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that sub-vending is being permitted after following the prescribed procedure. The opinion of the Gram Panchayats acting in a representative capacity is normally taken for opening of sub-vends. It is also stated that 52 Gram Panchayats have objected to the location of the vends/sub-vends and, accordingly, the same have been closed down. Insofar as "on" licences are concerned, according to the State, no sub-vending is permissible.

The petitioners have not pointed out any specific violation of the Rules or norms in force with regard to sub-vending which would give them a cause of action to espouse the grievances highlighted in the writ petition or which could be a justification for the Court to issue orders/directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the entire challenge in the writ petition proceeds on the basis of the individual perception of the petitioners which, in no case, can act as a safe or sound basis for the Court to issue the directions as prayed for. Opening of sub-vends, as asserted by the State, is governed by well laid down norms and if there is any departure therefrom it is always open for the petitioners or any other person to draw the attention of the Court to such violation.

In the absence of any detailed particulars with regard to violation of the laid down norms, we are of the view that this PIL ought not to be entertained any further. We, accordingly, close the same with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court, once again, in the event they desire to do so by bringing to the notice of the Court or such authority, as may be, the specific instances of violation of the Rules or the norms in force.

PIL is disposed of in the above terms.