VIKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. CWP No. 28009 of 2013

(2.) WITH the consent of parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The petitioner is a person, who has a +2 educational qualification and he is aggrieved about the condition in the advertisement released by the Corporation for receiving applications for allotment to LPG dealership. The counsel for the petitioner brings challenge to a particular clause 6.1 regarding common eligibility criteria for all categories applying as individual set forth in the brochure and the same reads as under: -

(3.) ARTICLE 19 which allows for a citizen to have the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business must be understood as a right which a person could carry on any business without being fettered otherwise than by law. If there is a fetter, it has to be in the nature of public interest through law enacted that is reasonable. I must observe that if the petitioner chooses to carry on any particular trade on his own and he is restricted in such a process, he can invoke Article 19(1)(g). If, on the other hand, he seeks to avail to himself a grant of a State largesse either from a State or its functionary, then the reference cannot be to Article 19(1)(g), it has to be under Article 14. Here a person seeks for a privilege by applying for a dealership from the Corporation. Such grant of largesse could be attached with such condition as it is amenable for the object which is sought to be achieved. The counsel for the respondents bring about a reasonable classification of the choice of eligible candidates. The Corporation would urge that there is a distinction between the persons who operate in rural areas and persons in urban, semi -urban and cities. Levels of education in a village are relatively lower and, therefore, compulsions of graduation or any higher degrees would not have been appropriate. The empowerment of rural folk through meaningful employment and for distribution of facilities must be available to persons with minimum qualification good enough to cater to the needs of rural folk. What would apply to villages cannot necessarily be seen as appropriate for urban areas where the levels of literacy are higher and the advent of computer technology makes relevant a higher level of education. The grant of dealership also addresses a major issue of urban unemployment amongst educated persons. The desirability of picking up a higher qualification with better educational qualification and that which would go to reduce unemployment must be seen to be appropriate and, therefore, such a policy if adopted there could be no tenable objection. The court's intervention on issues of policy are minimal only, to examine whether there is a policy that can identify intelligible differentia and bring about a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The intelligible differentia here are the gradations dependent on educational qualifications and the object sought to be achieved is to empower section of people who are educated and who would also fulfill certain other norms relating to property holding identifying property for locating the business etc. I will not find this to be arbitrary for a judicial intervention.