CHANDRAMOHAN BARIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C) No. 22286, 22475, 22481, 22482, 22561, 22575, 22669 and 22671 of 2015.

(2.) Grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions are that though they were appointed as retail dealers of PDS commodities for their respective villages under the respective Gram Panchayats in the district of Mayurbhanj and their licenses are valid till March, 2016 and there is absolutely no grievance from any quarter whatsoever against them, they have not been supplied with their quota PDS commodities, such as, rice, sugar, wheat and kerosene to distribute the same to the ration cardholders attached to them, according to their entitlements and the Collector, Mayurbhanj (opposite party No. 2 in all these writ petitions) has directed the concerned Panchayat Executive Officers of the concerned Gram Panchayats to distribute the PDS commodities from the month of December, 2015 under the National Food Security Act, 2013. The same has been challenged here in these writ petitions by the petitioners to be illegal and arbitrary, seeking with a direction to the opposite parties to allot the monthly quota of PDS commodities in favour of the petitioners as per the choice/suggestion of the beneficiaries tagged to them during the validity period of their licences.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the State submits that since the aforesaid step for distribution of PDS commodities to the ration cardholders attached to the petitioners has been taken for rationalisation, the same cannot be found fault with. Otherwise also, a licensee does not have any right for allotment of quota of PDS commodities under the Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. Furthermore, under the National Food Security Act, rice and wheat both are being supplied to the ration cardholders and some of the dealers who have ventilated their grievances, are being allowed either of the commodities to them for distribution and some of them though had withheld the allotment to distribute both the commodities, but the consumer under the National Food Security Act having given a right to prefer a dealer and in the present cases at hand, the rational cardholders have preferred different dealers than the petitioners, for that the ration cardholders attached to the petitioners have come down below five hundred and as such, their fair price shop was not viable, hence they have not been allotted with the quota of PDS commodities which they were distributing to the ration cardholders earlier. Therefore, all these writ petitions are devoid of merit.