CH. MAKHAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OWP Nos.842/2017, 843/2017, 848/2017, 860/2017, 869/2017, 870/2017, 871/2017& 876/2017 The petitioners in all these writ petitions claim to have been appointed as Fair Price Dealers by the department of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department on different dates, for different areas of different districts. The petitioners further claim that they have been serving the public of the areas for which they have been appointed for the last several years with an unblemished record and now at this age when the petitioners have either become over aged or likely to become as such, their livelihood has been put at stake by the respondents, who are contemplating to either replace the petitioners or to appoint new dealers for the areas, which are presently fed by them. They, therefore, submit that the respondents have already set the process in motion for bifurcating the dealership/Fair Price Rationees/RTs of the petitioners for extraneous and political considerations. The petitioners further submit that appointment of new dealers in the areas of the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and has the effect of depriving the petitioners of their fundamental right to livelihood. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are going ahead for appointment of new dealers to the detriment of the petitioners without even putting the petitioners to show cause notice or holding any enquiry into the matter.

(2.) The petitioners further claim that they have learnt that the government in terms of the impugned Annexure-A to Govt. Order No.137-FCS and CA of 2016 dated 02.09.2016 has directed the opening of new Fair Price Shops by taking out some ration tickets of the petitioners, which action of the government, argue learned counsels for the petitioners, is violative of Govt. Order No.127-FCS& CA of 2016 dated 04.08.2016. It is, thus, contended that as per the policy governing the appointment of new ration dealers/Fair Price Shop Dealers as contained in Govt. Order dated 04.08.2016, a new Fair Price Shop is to be opened for every 250 Ration Tickets providing further that existing Fair Price Shop Dealers can retain Ration Tickets (RTs) even more than 250 and upto 499, if there is no feasibility of opening the second fair price shop in the area. The policy further provides that rationees should have fair price shop existing within a radius of 1.5 kilometer to 2 kilometer from their residence subject to having 250 RTs to be bifurcated. As admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, their fair price shops are catering to RTs more than 250 in number and in many cases even more than 500 RTs. The petitioners, therefore, apprehend that RTs beyond 250 would be taken out from them and shifted to the newly opened Ration Dealers/Fair Price Shops, which in turn would substantially reduce their commission and thus, would affect their livelihood. It is also contended by the petitioners that for the last several years the respondents have not adequately enhanced the commission and therefore, even prior to the issuance of the impugned policy of appointment of new dealers, the petitioners were making their both ends meet with great difficulty. They, therefore, submit that the impugned policy has come to them as a bolt from the blue and has further reduced their income, which they were earning by way of meager commission by distribution of ration to the rationees.

(3.) In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners in all these writ petitions have prayed for a direction to the respondents to replace them or take away their existing ration tickets and transfer the same to new fair price dealers arbitrarily. They have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to work as ration dealers/fair price shop dealers smoothly without causing any hindrance and taking away the ration tickets from their areas of operation. Lastly the petitioners also seek writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned Annexure-A to Government Order No.137-FCS& CA of 2016 dated 02.09.2016 insofar as it pertains to the petitioners and their right to livelihood.