District Collector and Another Vs. B. Suresh and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 1954-1975 of 1999
(Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 851-872 of 1998)
(Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 851-872 of 1998)
Petitioner: District Collector and Another
Respondent: B. Suresh and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 1954-1975 of 1999
(Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 851-872 of 1998)
(Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 851-872 of 1998)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 04, 1999
Appearances:
Mr. P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Mr. H.V.P. Sharma, Mr. A.N. Bardiyar, Advocates with him for the appellants.
Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Senior Advocate, Mr. T.Raja, Mr. Vikas Bansal, Mr. Satish K. Agnihorti, Ms. Madhur Dadlani and Mr. B. S. Banthia, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Constitution of India 1950
Article 19(1)(g) – Right to trade – Govt. decision to bifurcate the shops and reduce number of cards – No notice to Fair Price shop owners – If violative of Article 19(1)(g). Held that by impugned orders of 1973, licence to deal with commodities was not cancelled. Hence, right to trade is not affected for want of notice.(Para 4)
Constitution of India 1950
Article 19(1)(g) – Right to trade – Govt. decision to bifurcate the shops and reduce number of cards – No notice to Fair Price shop owners – If violative of Article 19(1)(g). Held that by impugned orders of 1973, licence to deal with commodities was not cancelled. Hence, right to trade is not affected for want of notice.(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Substitution allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondents, who were appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealers under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, can claim a right to be noticed when the State Government decides to bifurcate the shops and reduce the number of cards. The High Court by the impugned judgment, being of the opinion that such Fair Price Shop Dealers are to be noticed before any alteration is made, has quashed the decision of the Government. The State assails the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
4. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodi-ties (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, which order has been framed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 a Fair Price Shop Dealer has no right to be appointed as such dealer. The licence which such dealer has obtained under the provisions of the Act to deal with the commod-ities has not been cancelled. The right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not being affected in any manner. The Government, as a policy decision, decided to reduce the number of cards per dealer. Such decision does not affect the rights, if any, of the Fair Price Shop Dealers and as such the High Court was in error to hold that they were to be given any notice prior to the impugned decision of the State Government.
5. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and allow this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Substitution allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondents, who were appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealers under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, can claim a right to be noticed when the State Government decides to bifurcate the shops and reduce the number of cards. The High Court by the impugned judgment, being of the opinion that such Fair Price Shop Dealers are to be noticed before any alteration is made, has quashed the decision of the Government. The State assails the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
4. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodi-ties (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, which order has been framed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 a Fair Price Shop Dealer has no right to be appointed as such dealer. The licence which such dealer has obtained under the provisions of the Act to deal with the commod-ities has not been cancelled. The right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not being affected in any manner. The Government, as a policy decision, decided to reduce the number of cards per dealer. Such decision does not affect the rights, if any, of the Fair Price Shop Dealers and as such the High Court was in error to hold that they were to be given any notice prior to the impugned decision of the State Government.
5. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and allow this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
