CONSUMERS CO Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GORAKHPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a primary co-operative society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The Society is located in the town of Gorakhpur. It was incorporated in 1976. One of the objects of the society, according to the petitioner, was to make essential commodities and scarce goods available to the public at a fair price. For this purpose, the petitioner had been appointed retail distributor for the distribution of the government foodgrains, kerosene oil and sugar under the relevant Control Orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, from time to time.

(2.) In the year 1979, the petitioner entered into an agreement. This agreement expired in Nov. 1980. To enable itself to get the foodgrains, the petitioner alleges that the society executed a fresh agreement in Nov., 1980. It may, however, be noted here that according to the petitioner, although an agreement had been executed, but the same was not required to be done by it for availing the right of distribution under the relevant Control Orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that on 18-12-1980 the Government of U.P. formulated a policy in regard to the allotment of foodgrains to the fair price shops Under this policy, the State Government decided to cancel the allotment of fair price shops in favour of individuals. The further decision was that the distribution of the government foodgrains, kerosene oil, sugar and other commodities had to be made only through co-operative societies. The petitioner has filed a copy or the policy as Annexure 'II'. This policy laid down that there were some co-operative societies already working for the said purpose and they would be permitted to continue. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the formulation of a policy for the distribution of foodgrains through co-operative societies, the respondents took the view that the petitioner society was not entitled to continue as a retail dealer and, as such the respondents stopped supplying the foodgrains to the petitioner society. As the petitioner felt aggrieved by the unauthorised action of the respondents, its Chairman Wrote a letter to the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur, on 1-1-1981. No heed was given to the request of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ petition claiming that the action of not appointing the petitioner as a retail dealer for the distribution of government foodgrains and sugar was unauthorised and illegal. The respondents acted against the policy of the Government by cancelling only 104 individual allottees of fair price shops to the co-operative societies. The main ground taken by the petitioner was that as it was also a co-operative society, it had to be treated alike and could not be discriminated by not being supplied the foodgrains for being sold through its shop.