SARKARI SASTA ANAJ VIKRETA SANGH TAHSIL BEMETRA MOHANLAL GUPTA KRIPARAM DEWANGAN PURUSHOTTAM LAL SURESH KUMAR SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution and petitions for special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution may be disposed of by a common order since they raise the same questions. In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and delegated to it by the Government of India by its Order No. GSR 1088 dated Nov. 15, 1958, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Department of Food), the Government of Madhya Pradesh made the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960. The undoubted object of the order was to provide for better distribution of foodstuffs to such class of consumers as required a regular supply of such foodstuffs. Detailed provision was made for the issue of 'family cards', the registration of the holders of such 'family cards' with "appointed retailers" the appointment of "appointed retailers", the supply of foodstuffs to "appointed retailers" by the Government, the sale of foodstuffs by 'appointed retailers' to consumers etc. "Family card" was defined as meaning "a card or document issued to the head of a family under or in pursuance of the provisions of this order". "Appointed retailer" was defined to mean "a retail dealer appointed or deemed to be appointed under the provisions of Cl. 3 in respect of any foodstuff". "Govt. scheme" was defined to mean "the scheme for distribution of foodstuffs to consumers through fair price shops set up by the Government in this behalf''. Clause 3 of the Order made provisions for the appointment of "appointed retailers" by the Collector for purposes of distributing foodstuffs under the Government scheme. Clause 4 of the Order prohibited an "appointed retailer" from supplying any foodstuffs in respect of which he held his appointment except under and in accordance with the provisions of the order. Pursuant to the M. P. Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960, several persons were appointed as "appointed retailers". The petitioners were so appointed and many of them claimed that they were unemployed graduates at the time of their appointment as "appointed retailers". Things went on, according to the Government very badly, till the Government moved in the matter, first, by sending urgent wireless messages to all Collectors on Oct. 28, 1980, and following it up very soon thereafter, on Oct. 30, 1980, by amending the M. P. Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960. The wireless message was as follows

(2.) The vital change brought about by the amendment and the new scheme was the abolition of the system of 'appointed retailers' and their replacement by 'fair price shops' which were to be run by the agents appointed under the new scheme, preference in the matter of appointment of agents being given to co-operative societies.

(3.) Writ petitions were filed immediately in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by erstwhile 'appointed retailers' questioning the validity of the wireless message, the amendment of the M. P. Foodstuffs (Distribution) Control Order and the M. P. Foodstuffs (Civil Supplies Public Distribution) Scheme. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (G. P. Singh, C. J. and Faizanuddin J.) dismissed the writ petitions by their judgment, D/- 13-4-1981 : (reported in AIR 1981 Madh Pra 203). Most of the submissions made before us were also made before the High Court and were rejected by the learned Chief Justice in a well considered judgment. Some of the applicants before the High Court have filed petitions for special leave to appeal to this Court and some others have directly moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution.