KRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN O. P. Nos. 13936 and 14454 of 1995, petitioners challenge Ext. P5 circular issued by the Kannur District Co-op. Bank Ltd. which required that the Rubber Sheeting Rollers shall be purchased only from Regional agro-INdustries Development Corporation Ltd. as a precondition for disbursement of loan. IN O. P. No. 16115 of 1995, petitioner' challenges the Govt. Order dt. 19. 9. 1995 which states that for the distribution of pump sets under the comprehensive Coconut Development programme, pump sets shall be supplied by the kerala Agro-INdustries Corporation and Regional Agro-INdustries Development corporation in the districts of Kannur, Wyanad, Kozhikode, Malappuram, palakkad, Thrissur and Kottayam. The facts in O. P. 13936/95 and O. P. 14454 of 1995 are similar. IN both cases, petitioners are agriculturists engaged in the cultivation of rubber, coconuts and other cash crops. Petitioners and similarly placed agriculturists have availed loans for the purpose of cultivation. There are various schemes formulated by the State owned financial institutions to provide short term loan. to agriculturists. By using these loans, agriculturists purchased good quality agro machineries and accessories at competitive prices. IN 1993, the District Co-op. Bank took a decision to give incentives to agriculturists to purchase Rubber Sheeting Rollers from Regional Agro industries Development Corporation Ltd. (for short 'raidco' ). But, later this scheme was withdrawn. RAIDCO is only a co-op. society dealing in agro-machineries. It does not have many outlets or distributors. Petitioners allege that at the instance of the Kannur District Co-op. Bank Ltd. it was decided mat whenever loans are distributed, it should be with a condition that what ever machinery is required for the purpose for which loan is sanctioned should be purchased from RAIDCO. Other agromachinery dealers challenged this circular and it was held in O. P. 9628 of 1989 that the circular was discriminatory. This circular was withdrawn by the Registrar of Co-op. Societies. However, again a decision was taken to favour the 3rd respondent. This again was challenged before this Court but the Original Petition was dismissed. According to the petitioners, any order conferring special treatment to RAIDCO is illegal as it is violative of the fundamental rights of other dealers. It is further contended that these petitioners approached the District co-op. Bank in the Kannur District to avail loan for the purchase of Rubber sheeting Rollers and the petitioners were directed that the Rubber Sheeting rollers shall be purchased from RAIDCO. This, according to the petitioners, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the petitioners 'right to equality, freedom of choice and freedom of liberty. According to the petitioners, the condition stipulated in Ext. P5 circular to purchase Rubber Sheeting Rollers from particular Coop. Societies is against the orders of this Court.

(2.) IN O. P. 16115 of 1995, the matter relates to the purchase of pump sets. Petitioner therein is a dealer in agro-machinery and he is having a shop at Kanhangad in Kasaragod district. Petitioner is also the president of the Kerala Agro-machinery dealers association. It is contended that there are 550 private dealers. RAIDCO formed Co-op. Societies in the northern districts of Kerala. They are also dealers in agricultural pump sets, implements and agro-machineries. RAIDCO has got only 25 outlets all over kerala. So also Kerala Agro-INdustries Corporation Ltd. (for short'kaico')which is a Govt. of Kerala undertaking, has only 11 outlets all over Kerala. Various schemes either sponsored by the Central Govt. or State Govts. are implemented for the development of agriculture. As part of this Scheme, Govt. of Kerala has decided to implement a scheme known as Comprehensive Coconut Development programme (CCDP ). Under this scheme subsidies are to be provided for tube wells, open dug wells, pump sets, group irrigation, green manure, copra drier etc. The scheme proposes to provide irrigation facilities by subsidising construction of wells and installation of pump sets. IN the northern districts, these pump sets arc being supplied by KAICO and when the petitioner made enquiry it was understood that the Govt, issued order No. G. O. (Rt.)1310/95/addt. 19. 9. 95 to the effect that in the districts of Kasaragod, Kannur, wyanad, Kozhikode, Malappuram, Palakkad, Thrissur and Kottayam the supply of pumpsets shall be exclusively made by RAIDCO and KAICO. Petitioner contends that Ext. P7 Govt. Order is highly illegal, totally arbitrary and absolutely without any jurisdiction. Itis contended that it is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

(3.) AT the outset, it could be stated that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19 of the Constitution do not confer any absolute or unconditional rights on the petitioner. It is always subject to reasonable restriction. Admittedly, RAIDCO and KAICO are Co-op. Societies. The mandate of the Art. 43 in Part IV of the Constitution is that the State should endeavour to promote the activities of the Co-op. Societies. It. is in this background the matter is to be viewed. It was held in the Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura coats Ltd UT 1995 (1) SC 71) at para. 16, thus : "ordinarily, any restriction so imposed which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a directive principle can be presumed to be a reasonable restriction in public interest".