VINAY PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. Notices have been accepted on behalf of the respondent No.5 by Sri Ankit Pandey.

(2.) This writ petition questions the correctness of the Government order dated 01.04.2006 and the order issued by the respondent State on 02.06.2016 whereby the standard rate of Rs.65/- per quintal for inter-State transportation and handling of foodgrains have been fixed by the State Government. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the same is based on a totally misinterpretation of Rule 7 of the Food Security (Assistance to the State Government) Rules, 2015. A copy of the said Rules has been placed on record. The said rule 7 is extracted hereinunder:-

(3.) We have considered the aforesaid submissions raised and we find that the State Government while proceeding to interpret Rule 7 of 2015 Rules may not have correctly arrived at the conclusion of the maximum permissible rate of Rs.65/- and to that extent the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct but the petitioner cannot compel the State Government to trade or to fix the rate as had been done earlier. The State Government has now reduced and fixed the rate at Rs.65/-. It is open to the petitioner to enter into the trade on the said rates as prescribed in the Government orders. A writ therefore, cannot be issued to compel the State Government to proceed to fix the rates as earlier which cannot be a matter of adjudication for this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.