Dismissed

Ambujakshi Amma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Mar 2017WP(C)/781/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Authorized wholesale distributors under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 challenged their displacement from ration distribution following implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015. The court held the State was duty bound to implement the 2013 Act through its authorized agency and dismissed the writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; State directed to take necessary steps to receive back ration articles remaining unsupplied with Authorized Dealers at the earliest, and to consider representations made by p

Ambujakshi Amma Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/6TH CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 781 of 2017 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. AMBUJAKSHI AMMA & CO., AWD NO.27, KADATHI EAST, MARKET P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 673. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, CHANDRA MOHANAN D.

¶8

2. R.MANOJ KUMAR,

¶9

MANAGING PARTNER, AWD NO.26, VRS TRADERS, P1-17, 18, 19, EEC MARKET COMPLEX, MARKET P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 673.

¶10

3. SKARIA J. MANGALLY AND COMPANY,

¶11

AWD NO.9, ANGAMALY-683 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER-MOHAMMED C.E.

¶12

4. SCARIA D.PARACKAL & CO., AWD NO.7, KALADY, ERNAKULAM-683 574, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER- E.M.ANTONY.

¶13

5. DR.RAJU MATHEW,

¶14

AWD NO.31, RAMALLOR, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

¶15

6. A.E.ALIKUTTY, AWD NO.28, KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 673.

¶16

7. THOMMAN PAILY,

¶17

AWD NO.38, CHATHAMATTOM P.O, VIA POTHANIKKAD, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 671.

¶18

8. JIM JOSE, AWD NO.10, KANJOOR, KALADY, ALUVA.

¶19

9. P.S.ISMAIL, AWD NO.15, NORTH PARUR, MARKET P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA-683 513.

¶20

10. BHARATHI AMMA,

¶21

AWD NO.35, KOLLIKKAL, PIRAVOM P.O, PIRAVOM.

¶22

2/-

¶23

-2-

¶24

WP(C).No. 781 of 2017 (W)

¶25

11. P.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, AWD NO.8, P.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & CO. NEAR KSRTC STAND, VYAPARA BHAVAN, ANGAMALY-683 572.

¶26

12. BABY VARGHESE & COMPANY, AWD NO.37, MILL HOUSE, NEAR MUNICIPAL BUILDING, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, NICOLAS VARGHESE.

¶27

13. VINU BABY, AWD NO.34, KOOTHATTUKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶28

BY SRI.V.V.ASOKAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (CHEMPLAYIL)

¶29

RESPONDENT(S):

¶30

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶31

2. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

¶32

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶33

3. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶34

4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶35

5. KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., PB NO.2030, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶36

3/-

¶37

-3-

¶38

WP(C).No. 781 of 2017 (W)

¶39

6. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶40

R1 TO R4 BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR R5 BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC, R6 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.R.PRASANTH KUMAR, CGC

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2017, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 1521 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 27-03-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

sts

¶43

WP(C).No. 781 of 2017 (W)

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (CONTROL) ORDER, 2001 AND THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO IT IN 2004. DATED NIL EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA TO THE WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS IN MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. DATED 19/11/2014 EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE TRUCK CHIT, DATED 22/7/2016. EXHIBIT P3(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE TRUCK CHIT, DATED 3/1/2017 EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY, DATED 4/1/2017. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, DATED 23/1/2017 EXHIBIT P5(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN TO EXT.P5 BY THE DEPOT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO, ERNAKULAM UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, DATED 10/2/2017 EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE DIRECTOR, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUPPLYCO, ERNAKULAM, DATED 13/12/2016 EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT G.O (MS) 53/2017/CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, DATED 23/2/2017.

¶47

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES:

¶48

EXHIBIT R3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CONTROL ORDER EXHIBIT R3(B): TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.15/16/F&CSD DATED 03/10/2016 EXHIBIT R3(C): TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.11/2016/F&CSD DATED 29/08/2016 EXHIBIT R3(D): TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 5/11/2016 EXHIBIT R3(E): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DATED 19/11/2016 EXHIBIT R3(F): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DATED 5/12/2016. 2/-

¶49

-2-

¶50

WP(C).No. 781 of 2017 (W)

¶51

EXHIBIT R5(A): TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.15/16/F&CSD DATED 03/10/2016. ANNEXURE R3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CONTROL ORDER, 2015 ANNEXURE R3(B): TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.15/16/F&CSD DATED 03/10/2016. ANNEXURE R3(C): TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.11/2016/F&CSD DATED 29/08/2016 ANNEXURE R3(D): TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 5/11/2016. ANNEXURE R3(E): TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 16/2016/F&CSD DATED 13/10/2016 ANNEXURE R3(F): TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 15/11/2016 ANNEXURE R3(G): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD & PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION DATED 25/10/2016

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

C.R.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶57

W.P.(C) Nos.781, 1521, 2230, 5478, 6060, 6211, 6663, 7846, 7889 & 8052 of 2017

¶58

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 27^th day of March, 2017

¶59

JUDGMENT

¶60

The captioned writ petitions are substantially and materially connected, in which the petitioners are seeking declaration that the petitioners are not liable to be displaced from the task of Authorized Wholesale Distribution on the basis of the licenses (AWD licenses) issued to them in purported implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013 or the consequential instructions from the Union of India, and for other related reliefs. Facts discernible from W.P.(C) No. 781 of 2017 are recited, and if and when facts from other writ petitions are required, same will be mentioned separately.

¶61

Petitioners are Authorized Wholesale Distributors engaged in the business of public distribution so entrusted to them as per the licenses given by the District Collector. Most of the licensees are so functioning since the introduction of the rationing system in Kerala.

¶62

The short question focused through this writ petition

¶63

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 2

¶64

is whether the AWD licenses issued under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 to the petitioners can be abruptly revoked under the guise of purported implementation of the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 [for short, 'Act, 2013'], or under the order of the Central Government - Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As far as State of Kerala is concerned, public distribution system of rationed articles are governed by the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, an order promulgated under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶65

Under Clause 51 of the Order, 1966, District Collector is the competent authority to issue licenses to competent persons as authorized wholesale distributors. Under the scheme, the wholesale distributors are to take required quantity of ration articles (rice and wheat) from the authorized channel i.e., Food Corporation of India/Civil Supplies Corporation's Depot or authorized mills against the authorities being given by the Department from time to time and to distribute the same to the attached Authorized Retail Distributors (ARDs) for distribution to the card holders.

¶66

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 3

¶67

It is submitted, the State has received considerable acclaim for its achievement in the creation of the Universal Public Distribution System. An evaluation study of the PDS conducted by the Government of India as early as in 1989 came out with the finding that the PDS in Kerala is predominantly rural based, and mainly to cater the food needs of the poorer sections of the society. The Authorized Wholesale Distributors in the State have considerable role in maintaining the system in the State, i.e. to lift the food grains from the FCI godowns for distribution to Authorized Retail Depots. According to the petitioners, under the rationing scheme (public distribution system), the licenses (AWD licenses) being issued thereunder are of perpetual nature, of course, subject to sub-clause 8 of Clause 51 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. To say in other words, licenses given to the petitioners are an irrevocable privilege, and continued to be governed under the provisions of the aforesaid Order, of course, with automatic renewal every three years, and in some cases, renewable every year.

¶68

The Union of India, to streamline food safety and

¶69

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 4

¶70

standards, promulgated Food, Safety and Standards Act, 2006, in supercession of erstwhile Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is pertinent to note in this context that, under Sec.97 of the Act, 2006, the orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act have been repealed with effect from 05.08.2011, but the saving clause therein in categoric terms saved and continued to have operation in respect of the licenses and proceedings already issued under the erstwhile Orders and Rules. This position is clear from a combined reading of Sec.97 read with Schedule-II of the Food, Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

¶71

That apart, it is stated, none of the provisions introduced by the Food, Safety and Standards Act, 2006 affected or tend to affect the running of wholesale distribution of ration articles by the petitioners and the like licensees in the State. In the year 2001, a Central Control Order viz., Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 was promulgated by the Central Government to maintain supplies and securing availability and distribution of essential commodities under the public distribution system, evident from Ext.P1. Clause 14 of the said order, according to the petitioners, shall have effect

¶72

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 5

¶73

notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any order made by the State Government or by an officer of such State Government before the commencement of this order except as respect anything done or omitted to be done thereunder before such commencement.

¶74

It is also stated that there is no parallel provision in the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 identical

¶75

to Clause 51 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 concerning appointment and control of Authorized Wholesale Distributors. Therefore, de hors the introduction of Order, 2001, Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 continued to hold the field enabling the AWDs to continue the wholesale distribution work entrusted to them without any hurdle.

¶76

Thereafter, the Parliament promulgated the National Food Security Act, 2013 with effect from 10.09.2013, and according to the petitioners, there is no direct embargo or directive to keep away wholesale distributors from the ration distribution hitherto followed in the State. Yet another contention raised is that, the paramount object of the Act, 2013 is to ensure adequate and full-fledged supply of ration articles to the deserving people. There is also an indication in

¶77

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 6

¶78

the Act to limit the quantity of ration articles to be disbursed to 5 Kg. per person per month, which is insufficient for the livelihood of the citizens depending solely on ration food grains in the State of Kerala. That apart, it is submitted that, identification of persons eligible for ration articles in the State is yet to be finalized and the said process is only progressing in a low pace. The present system of ration distribution in the State is perfect and adequate to the common people. The exclusion of 1.81 crores of citizens from the purview of ration articles is without any basis and there are agitations and objections even from the side of the State Government before the Union Government. The provisions of Act, 2013 are being implemented without proper study, and it tend to defeat the very object of the enactment. Without any effective mechanism, the distribution in accordance with the provisions of the Act will be a failure.

¶79

It was keeping in mind the said aspect, the Civil Supplies Department without attempting to displace the Authorized Wholesale Distributors required them to arrange additional godown facilities for the smooth functioning of the AWDs in the State, evident from Ext.P2 issued by the Taluk

¶80

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 7

¶81

Supply Officer, Muvattupuzha to the AWDs in Muvattupuzha Taluk dated 19.11.2014. Like notices were issued by other Taluk Supply Officers/District Supply Officers in the State. Such a notice has been issued after the promulgation of the Act, 2013, and it indicates that there is no directive or decision to discontinue wholesale distributors from the mechanism of ration articles. The wholesale dealers in obedience to the requisition took steps to provide additional godowns to store required quantity of ration articles for distribution to attached ARDs.

¶82

That apart, it is submitted, all the petitioners have their own permanent staff viz., (average 3 persons for each licensees) and loading and unloading workers for their wholesale distribution task. The petitioners have invested considerable amounts to run the AWD depots. The commission amount payable by the State Government to the licensees have accumulated in arrears and yet to be disbursed to them. Now, hectic steps are being taken by the respondents to abruptly displace the petitioners from undertaking the wholesale distribution task. No direct notice has been served on any of the petitioners regarding this move.

¶83

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 8

¶84

The practice of issuing truck chits in the name of the licensees hitherto followed to lift the ration stock from the FCI depot to their godowns is altered and the truck chits are instructed to be issued in the name of District Supply Officers. This is one of the tactics adopted by the Department to sideline the petitioners from the field of Authorized Wholesale Distribution. To demonstrate this strategy, petitioners have produced Exts.P3 and P3(a) specimen of the truck chit earlier issued and the truck chit now being issued respectively.

¶85

Yet another contention is, if the respondents wanted to totally displace/disengage, and to take the task directly, they should take such steps in a genuine manner. The attitude of the respondents are not fair, rather malafide and the same is proved by their move, and in that process, the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation has issued a notification dated 04.01.2017, inviting applications from the transporting contractors to lift ration articles from FCI/CMR godowns to the depot of Civil Supplies Corporation/ARDs, evident from Ext.P4. According to the petitioners, if Ext.P4 is allowed to be implemented, it will be destructive to the stand being taken by the respondents on the basis of Act, 2013. The method being

¶86

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 9

¶87

pursued is a clever devise to suddenly and illegally displace the petitioners from their authorized wholesale distribution work and any attempt to keep away their service from the Rationing field will be detrimental to the entire system. Being a consumer State, the need for maintaining such a network is all the more imperative in Kerala. It is because of the network, the social fabric of Kerala is maintained at an even pace in the

¶88

matter of ration distribution. Families are categorized as Above Poverty Line (APL), Below Poverty Line (BPL) and poorest in BPL and Antyodhya Anna Yojana (AAY). In accordance with the classifications, distinctive ration cards are provided to the consumers and the food grains are issued at the prices fixed by the Government.

¶89

W.P.(C) No.2230 of 2017

¶90

Among other similar contentions and questions raised, petitioners have submitted Ext.P10 representation before the Chief Minister of Kerala, explaining the facts and figures and pros and cons involved in the circumstances, and to consider the AWDs as authorized agencies in terms of the National Food Security Act, 2013, and if not, reasonable time may be provided to wind up the AWD in the public distribution

¶91

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 10

¶92

system.

¶93

W.P.(C) No.7846 of 2017

¶94

Among other contentions stated above, it is contended that, in furtherance of the National Food Security Act, 2013, under the provisions of the Act, there are statutory obligations to be performed by the State and the provisions of Act, 2013 cannot be given effect in practice without completing

¶95

the procedure prescribed therein, otherwise, the Act and the provisions therein will become illusionary. Under the said Act, the identified class is entitled to get the specified quantity of food grains per person per month at subsidized price specified in the schedule from the State Government under the Targeted Public Distribution System. It is submitted that the said process has not been undertaken by the State Government or updated the list of eligible households, as required. It is provided under Sec.11, creating an obligation on the State Government to place a list of identified eligible households in the public domain, and display it permanently, and the said process has not been undertaken or performed by the State till date, which thus means, there is total failure on the part of the State in performing the obligations as mandated under the Act

¶96

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 11

¶97

to give effect to the provisions of the Act and to implement the same in respect of other matters specified in the Act. There is no legal requirement for the State to displace the existing suppliers to implement the provisions of the 2013 Act. Under Chapter V of Act, 2013, the State is obliged to prepare an application of Information and Communication Technology tools including end-to-end computerization, in order to ensure transparent recording of transactions at all levels, and to prevent diversion. In furtherance of the requirements of law, the Government have issued Ext.P2 order on 03.10.2015, entrusting KELTRON as the system integrator and for the door delivery system including end-to-end computerization. However, since KELTRON intimated their inability and lack of experience, the 2^nd respondent Civil Supplies Corporation has been authorized to implement, and to take action for the door step delivery of food grains to the targeted public distribution outlets.

¶98

A reading of the contents of Ext.P2 would show that the State had not addressed the issue in the proper perspective as is discernible from the order itself, is the contention. It is also stated that as on 29.08.2016, there are

¶99

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 12

¶100

no godowns at the rate of two each in every block, at the disposal of the State. After the issuance of the order, Government have not constructed or taken steps for constructing godowns for the purpose of implementing door step delivery of food grains through Targeted Public Distribution outlets. It can be further seen from Ext.P2 that KELTRON had informed of their lack of expertise in the field of food supply. However, while issuing Ext.P2, the Government Order is silent regarding the end-to-end computerization in order to ensure transparent recording of transaction at all levels, and to prevent diversion by developing an application for information and communication technology as mandated under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Sec.12 of the Food Security Act. Therefore, it is the contention that in respect of the most important step to be taken for implementing the provisions of the Food Security Act, Government is silent and had not moved an inch forward in ensuring end-to-end computerization.

¶101

It is also submitted that, Sections 14, 15 and 16 of Act, 2013 obliges to constitute forums for the redressal of grievances. There are obligations under Sec.24 of the Act to

¶102

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 13

¶103

the State Government to perform for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Act, however, no effective steps have been taken by the Government in order to ensure uninterrupted supply of the food articles. That apart, it is stated, without taking any further steps as required, Government issued Ext.P3 order dated 03.10.2016, entrusting the duty of logistics and door to door delivery with Civil Supplies Corporation, and nominated the Corporation as the system integrator and authorized agency of the Government of Kerala as per Act, 2013. According to the petitioners, the State Government proceeds on the assumption that the State's responsibility will be over by entrusting the distribution to the 2^nd respondent. Though petitioners have submitted a representation highlighting the issues that are to be still sorted out. and in spite of the direction to consider such representation, the same was rejected as per Ext.P4 order, according to the petitioners, in a callous and negligent manner.

¶104

W.P.(C) No.6663 of 2017

¶105

Petitioners therein are authorized wholesale distributors for Punalur and Pathanapuram Taluks, Kollam

¶106

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 14

¶107

District. All of them were appointed as AWD's more than 20 years back, and they are discharging the duties and commitments without any complaint whatsoever. The

¶108

grievance of the petitioners is that, except the District of Kollam, no other Districts have taken any steps to implement the provisions of Act, 2013, and the corresponding orders issued by the Central and State Governments. Now, Ext.P3 order is issued by the District Supply Officer, Kollam, dated 06.02.2017, whereby it is instructed that the authorization for lifting food articles from FCI should be issued in favour of concerned Supplyco Depot Managers as part of initiating Pilot Project of door to door delivery of food articles under Act, 2013, and in that circumstances, a Depot Manager of Punalur is authorized to take delivery of food articles of Punalur and Pathanapuram Taluks. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners therein that the State Government is attempting to implement Act, 2013 in the Punalur and Pathanapuram Taluks of Kollam District.

¶109

W.P.(C) No.8052 of 2017.

¶110

The petitioner therein is a Co-operative Society

¶111

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 15

¶112

registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, and is a licensee of Wholesale Depot No.10 in Tirur Taluk. A distinct contention is raised by the petitioner therein to the effect that as per the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 enacted under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the authorized agency takes in State Government, or body corporate or a company owned by it, or a “co-operative”. Therefore, according to the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to be retained as of right as an AWD.

¶113

In the other captioned writ petitions similar contentions are raised and therefore, they are not narrated separately.

¶114

A counter affidavit is filed by the State Government and its officers in W.P.(C) No.1521 of 2017, with an adoption memo to adopt the counter affidavit to other writ petitions also. The paramount contention advanced in the counter affidavit is that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioners have no locus standi to file the above writ petition. That apart, it is stated that the Central Government has enacted the Act, 2013, which came into effect in the same year itself, to provide for food and nutritional security in human life

¶115

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 16

¶116

cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity, and for matters connected therewith. It is also contended that the provisions of Act 2013 are mandatory and imperative in nature compelling the State Government to implement the same, so as to ensure benefits to the persons entitled to get food grains in accordance with the stipulations contained thereunder. So also Section 11 of the Act creates a duty on the State Government to place the list of the identified eligible households in the public domain. It is submitted, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act and in supersession of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, the Central Government has introduced the Order, 2015 with effect from 20.03.2015. The said order was issued by the Central Government, since it is found that it is necessary and expedient to do so for maintaining supplies and securing availability and distribution of Essential Commodity, namely food grains under the Targeted Public Distribution System. Under Sec.3(1) of the Act, 2013, every person belonging to priority households shall be entitled to receive five kilograms of food grains per person

¶117

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 17

¶118

per month as per subsidized prices specified in Schedule I from the State Government under the “Targeted Public Distribution System”. It further provides right to receive food grains at subsidized prices by persons belonging to eligible households under the Targeted Public Distribution System and also for nutritional support to pregnant women and lactating mothers, children etc. etc. Sec.7 mandates that the State Government shall implement schemes covering entitlements under Sections 4, 5 and 6 in accordance with the guidelines, including the cost sharing between the Central Government and State Government in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

¶119

Chapter IV of the Act provides for determination of the percentage coverage of population under Targeted Public Distribution System. Chapter V relates to the reforms in Targeted Public Distribution System, including delivery of food grains at the doorstep of the consumers eligible under Targeted Public Distribution System. Chapter VII provides that Central Government shall ensure regular supply of food grains to eligible households and allocate from the central pool, the required food grains to the State Government under “Targeted

¶120

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 18

¶121

Public Distribution System”.

¶122

It is also submitted, sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Sec.24 of the Act obligates the State Government for implementation and monitoring of the schemes under the Act, and ensuring duty of the State Government to take delivery of food grains from the designated depots of the Central Government in the State FCI Godown at the prices prescribed in Schedule I, organize Intra-State allocations for delivery of the allocated food grains through their authorized agencies at the door step of each fair price shop. Section 24(5) provides for efficient operations of the Targeted Public Distribution System. Every State Government, for that purpose, is mandated to create and maintain scientific storage facilities at the State District and Block levels, being sufficient to accommodate food grains required under the Targeted Public Distribution System. It also mandates the State Government to establish institutionalized licensing arrangements for fair price shops in accordance with the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. Therefore, it is the contention of the State Government that under Sec.24 of the Act, 2013, it is the responsibility of the State Government to take delivery

¶123

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 19

¶124

of the food grains from the FCI godown and organize intraState allocations for delivery of the allocated food grains to their entitled customers through the authorized agency. Thus, it is absolutely clear that for taking delivery of the food grains under the National Food Security Act, 2013, the State Government has to provide an authorized agency as defined under Rule 2(g) of 'Order 2015'. It is also submitted that, for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of Act, 2013 in letter and spirit, Government have entrusted the Civil Supplies Corporation as the 'authorized agency' as per Ext.R3(b) Government Order dated 03.10.2016. As can be seen from Clause 7(iii) of Annexure R3(c), Government have decided, for the purpose of storing the food grains, the State Government will provide its own depot at the block level. It is accordingly submitted that State Government have acted strictly in accordance with the National Food Security Act, 2013. Therefore, after the implementation of Act, 2013, no other person, except an authorized agency defined under the Act, 2013 can take delivery of the food grains from FCI godown, and it is abundantly clear that the wholesale ration distributors license under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 who are private

¶125

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 20

¶126

entities cannot be an authorized agency under the Targeted Public Distribution System.

¶127

It is also stated, from November, 2016 the entire food grains allocation by the Central Government is being taken delivery of by the State Government through the concerned District Supply Offices. The authorized wholesale dealers are not taking any food grains from November, 2016 onwards, and the Government Order Ext.R3(d) dated 05.11.2016 is a testimony for the steps taken by the State Government accordingly. In consonance with the action initiated by the State Government, the Food Corporation of India has issued Exts.R3(e) and R3(f) dated 19.11.2016 and 05.12.2016 respectively, instructing that the release orders of food grains will be issued from the Food Corporation of India District Offices only in favour of the District Supply Officer.

¶128

It is also stated that respondents have already arranged 90 godowns in 75 Taluks for the purpose of implementation of Act, 2013. The Supplyco has arranged godown mainly through Kerala State Warehousing Corporation, Central Warehousing Corporation and also through Sub Lease from KSWC covering all 75 Taluks. The details of the godowns

¶129

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 21

¶130

are also provided.

¶131

That apart, it is stated, for the purpose of transportation of food grains from Food Corporation of India/Mills to Public Distribution System Depots, and from there to the doorsteps of ARDs were invited covering all Taluks with last date as 21.01.2017, which is subsequently extended up to 27.01.2017. The process of verification and negotiations are in the final stage and the pilot project of National Food Safety Act is to be implemented in Kollam District from March, 2017 onwards [issue in W.P.(C) No.6663 of 2017], for which lifting of food grains from Food Corporation of India/Mills is to be started immediately and the same has to be completed by 28.02.2017. Therefore, it is the contention of the respondents that appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2013 are undertaken by the State Government and the State Government is confident that it can be successfully worked out in order to ensure uninterrupted supply to the customers ultimately.

¶132

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation has also filed a counter affidavit on the same lines. That apart, it is contended that under Sec.97 of the Food Safety and Standards

¶133

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 22

¶134

Act, 2006, with effect from such date as the Central Government may appoint in this behalf, the enactment orders specified in the second schedule shall stand repealed. Under Sec.97(2), it is specified that, if there is any other law for the time being in force in any State corresponding to the said Act, same shall, upon the commencement of the Act, stand repealed and in such case, the provisions of Sec.6 of the General Clauses Act shall apply, as if such provisions of the State law had been repealed. Therefore, according to the said respondent, the Central Government appointed 05.08.2011 as the date on which the repeal and savings to take effect vide notification dated 04.08.2011. The Second Schedule of the Food Safety and Standards Act contain 8 Clauses. Clauses 1 to 7 therein are the orders issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Clause 8 refers to any other order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 relating to food. Since the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act is one relating to food coming within the definition of food under the Food Safety and

¶135

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 23

¶136

Standards Act, the same would automatically stand repealed. Therefore, it is the contention of the said respondent that the argument advanced that despite the introduction of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 continues to hold the field is unsustainable. That apart, it is contended that, the said contention has lost relevance in view of the promulgation of National Food Security Act, 2013 with effect from 16.09.2013 and framing of Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 with effect from 20.03.2015 by the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act and in supersession of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001.

¶137

That apart, it is contended that Justice Wadhwa Commission appointed by the apex court in W.P.(C) No.196 of 2001 filed by People's Union for Civil Liberties has conducted a study on Kerala Public Distribution System and has submitted recommendations in its report. The said report negatives the contention of the petitioners that the present system of ration distribution in the State is perfect and effective and adequate

¶138

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 24

¶139

to the common people. In fact, in the said report, the Commission has observed that the system of appointing AWDs for wholesale distribution means involving one more intermediaries in the wholesale system and recommended abolition of Authorized Wholesale Distributors (AWDs) in the State and conferring on the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., the functions of AWD. The Commission has also pointed out that one of the measures to prevent diversion is to make door step delivery of PDS commodities to the fair price shops. The transportation and loading charges can be mitigated by door step delivery of PDS commodities and the present system adopted is in tune with the views expressed by Justice Wadhwa Commission. The details with respect to the godown made available by the Corporation are also furnished. It is also stated that the pilot project has been implemented in Kollam District by the Corporation with effect from 01.03.2017 and for that, alternate arrangements have been made for lifting ration articles from FCI, and transporting it to the godowns and from there to the door steps of retail distributors in that Taluk. It is also the contention that, as per Sec.24 of Act, 2013, State Government is bound to take delivery of food

¶140

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 25

¶141

grains from the FCI godown and organize intra-state allocations of the allocated food grains to the entitled customers through the authorized agency alone, and therefore, it is clear that the Authorized Wholesale Distributors are excluded from the ration distribution system as they are not able to function as authorized agency. Other contentions are also raised to support the contentions advanced by the State Government.

¶142

Reply affidavit is filed in some of the writ petitions and separate statements are also filed by the State Government in the writ petitions, however, apart from the general contentions also to meet with the specific contention raised in each of the writ petitions. Anyhow, the thrust of the contention advanced by the State Government is on the basis of the provisions of the Act, 2013, obligating the State Government to implement the provisions of the said Act in supersession of the present system of public distribution of ration articles through Authorized Wholesale Dealers. Therefore, individual reference to the statements may not have much bearing to the issues to be decided in the writ petitions.

¶143

Heard learned Senior Advocates, Sri. V.V. Asokan,

¶144

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 26

¶145

and Sri. K. Jaju Babu, Advocates, Sri. George Poonthottam, Sri. Babu Paul, Sri.Vinod Madhavan and Sri. Sreekumar G. Chelur appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Ranjith Thampan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and Smt. Molly Jacob, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. Perused the entire documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶146

The foregoing discussion makes it clear that the issue centres around the introduction of the National Food Security Act, 2013 by the State Government, which is interdicting the operation of the petitioners who are Authorized Wholesale Ration Dealers. The National Food Security Act, 2013 is brought by the Central Government in terms of Article 47 of the Constitution of India, which obligates the State to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health. The statement of objects and reasons of introducing the Act, 2013 is on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which India is a signatory, and thereupon, it casts

¶147

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 27

¶148

responsibility of all State parties to recognize the right of everyone to adequate food, eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, which is also in tune with the terms and objectives of the United Nations. Therefore, in pursuance of the constitutional, and International Conventions obligations, providing food security has been focus of the Government's planning and policy, evident from the objects and reasons. This necessitated the Union Government to introduce the Act and implement the same through the State Governments. By introducing Act, 2013, from the current welfare approach, a shift is made to a right based approach. One of the objective is to require the State Government to identify and provide meals through the local anganwadi, free of charge, to children who suffer from malnutrition, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II of Act, 2013 and implement schemes covering entitlements of women and children in accordance with the guidelines, including cost sharing, between the Central Government and the State Governments in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

¶149

That apart by introducing Act, 2013, it is conferring

¶150

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 28

¶151

or entitling the eligible persons under Chapter II of the Act, 2013 to receive such food security allowance from the concerned State Government to be paid to each person, in case of non-supply of the entitled quantities of foodgrains or meals, within the time and manner prescribed by the Central Government. Yet another goal is to provide subsidized foodgrains under the Targeted Public Distribution System to specified percentage of rural and urban population, at the all India level and empower the Central Government to determine the State-wise percentage coverage. That apart, the provisions of Act entitle every person belonging to priority households to receive every month from the State Government, under the Targeted Public Distribution System, five kilograms of foodgrains, per person per month, at subsidized prices specified in Schedule I to Act, 2013. The households covered under Antyodaya Anna Yojana shall be entitled to receive thirty-five kilograms of foodgrains per household per month at the prices specified in Schedule I. The said entitlement and subsidized prices shall extend up to 75% of the rural population and up to 50% of the urban population.

¶152

That apart, it has a predominant intention to entitle

¶153

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 29

¶154

every pregnant woman and lactating mother to meal, free of charge, during pregnancy and six months after child birth, through the local anganwadi, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II; and to provide such women maternity benefit of not less than rupees six thousand in such installments as may be prescribed by the Central Government. It also ensures every child up to the age of fourteen years, (i) age appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local anganwadi so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II in the case of children in the age group of six months to six years; and (ii) one mid day meal, free of charge, every day, except on school holidays, in all schools run by local bodies, Government and Government aided schools, to children up to Class VIII or within the age group of six to fourteen years, whichever is applicable, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II. Apart from the same, various other welfare measures are provided to the citizens.

¶155

In order to introduce and implement the Scheme, State Government is empowered to prescribe guidelines for identification of priority households for the purposes of their

¶156

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 30

¶157

entitlements under the proposed legislation and identify such households and households to be covered under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana, in accordance with the guidelines applicable to the scheme. That apart, the State as well as the Central Government are duty bound to progressively undertake necessary reforms in the Targeted Public Distribution System in consonance with the role envisaged for them in the proposed legislation. The State Government is obliged to put in place an internal grievance redressal mechanism which may include call centres, help lines, designation of nodal officers, or such other mechanism as may be prescribed by the respective Governments, and for expeditious and effective redressal of grievances of the aggrieved persons in matters relating to distribution of entitled foodgrains or meals under Chapter II of the proposed legislation, a District Grievance Redressal Officer, with requisite staff, to be appointed by the State Government for each District, to enforce these entitlements and investigate and redress grievances.

¶158

It also necessitates the State Government to make provision for constitution of Food Commission for the purpose of monitoring and review of implementation of the proposed

¶159

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 31

¶160

legislation. Further, an obligation is cast upon the Central Government to ensure regular supply of foodgrains for persons belonging to eligible households and allocate the required quantity of foodgrains to the State Governments under the Targeted Public Distribution System from the Central pool as per the entitlements and at prices specified in Schedule I to the proposed legislation. The State Government is also duty bound to make provision for implementation and monitoring the schemes of various Ministries and Departments of the Central Government in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government for each scheme, and their own schemes, for ensuring food security to the targeted beneficiaries in their State; and make the local authorities responsible, for the proper implementation of the proposed legislation in their respective areas. Other precautionary measures are ensured under the provisions of the Act in order to implement the schemes, and make the supply chain run free of corruption, and supply of quality foodgrains to the citizens who are entitled to enjoy the provisions of Act, 2013.

¶161

The preamble of Act, 2013 reads that: “An Act to provide for food and nutritional security in human life cycle

¶162

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 32

¶163

approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. 'Food security' is defined under Sec.2(6) to mean: the supply of the entitled quantity of foodgrains and meal specified under Chapter II. ''Targeted Public Distribution System” is defined under Sec.2(23) to mean: the system for distribution of essential commodities to the ration card holders through fair price shops. Section 8 deals with right to receive food security allowance in case of non-supply of entitled quantities of foodgrains or meals to entitled persons under Chapter II from the concerned State Government to be paid to each person, within such time and manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Section 9 instills a duty on the Central Government to ensure the percentage coverage under Targeted Public Distribution System in rural and urban areas for each State, subject to sub-section (2) of Sec.3, and the total number of persons to be covered in such rural and urban areas of State shall be calculated on the basis of the population estimates as per the census of which the relevant figures have been published. Section 10 of the Act casts a

¶164

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 33

¶165

duty on the State Government to prepare guidelines and to identify priority households. Section 11 creates a duty on the State Government to place the list of the identified eligible households in the public domain and display it prominently.

¶166

Section 12(2) of the Act deals with the endeavour of the Central and the State Governments to progressively undertake necessary reforms in the Targeted Public Distribution System in consonance with the role envisaged for them under the Act. Sub-section (2) of the said provision deals with the obligation of the State and clause (a) imposes a duty of doorstep delivery of foodgrains to the Targeted Public Distribution System outlets and clause (b) deals with application of information and communication technology tools including end-to-end computerization in order to ensure transparent recording of transactions at all levels to prevent diversion.

¶167

Section 15 deals with the appointment of a District Grievance Redressal Officer, and Sec.16 deals with State Food Commission. However, Sec.18 enables the State Government to designate any statutory Commission or body to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the State Commission

¶168

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 34

¶169

referred to in Sec.16 of the Act. Then comes the responsibility of the State Government for the implementation and monitoring of schemes to ensure food security in accordance with the tenor and terms of Sec.24 of the Act. Sec.24 creates an imperative duty and obligation on the State Government for responsible implementation and monitoring of the schemes of various Ministries and Departments of the Central Government in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government for each scheme and their own scheme for ensuring food security to the targeted beneficiaries in their State. Sub-section (2) of Sec.24 creates a duty on the State Government: (a) to take delivery of foodgrains from the designated depots of the Central Government in the State, at the prices specified in Schedule I, organize intra-State allocations for delivery of the allocated foodgrains through their authorized agencies at the door-step of each fair price shop; and (b) ensure actual delivery or supply of the foodgrains to the entitled persons at the prices specified in Schedule I. As per sub-section (5) of Sec.24, every State Government is endorsed with the duty (a) to create and maintain scientific storage facilities at the State, District and

¶170

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 35

¶171

Block levels, being sufficient to accommodate foodgrains required under the Targeted Public Distribution System and other food based welfare schemes; (b) suitably strengthen capacities of their Food and Civil Supplies Corporations and other designated agencies; and (c) establish institutionalized licensing arrangements for fair price shops in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as amended from time to time.

¶172

On a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is unequivocally and categorically clear that, consequent to the introduction of the National Food Security Act, 2013 from the year 2013 itself, the State Government is duty bound to implement the provisions of the Act in order to ensure supply of foodgrains as envisioned under the Act to the needy and the entitled persons as per the provisions of the Act. The State Government in order to secure the required quantity of the food from the Union Government are duty bound to implement the provisions of the Act. It is true, till such time Act, 2013 was introduced and almost ever since the supply of ration articles were undertaken by the State Government, the same

¶173

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 36

¶174

was done through Authorized Wholesale Depot Dealers and Authorized Ration Dealers, by providing appropriate licenses to them under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the licenses provided to them by the State Government under the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order is still surviving and merely because Act, 2013 is introduced, that will not in any manner affect the Authorized Wholesale Depot Dealers from enjoying the license facilities provided to them. Moreover, the paramount contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the State Government has not made enough preparations in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013 for the storage of food grains. In order to establish the said contention, it is contended that the Wholesale Ration Depot Dealers are having more than 300 adequate storage facilities, whereas the State Government through the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, an infrastructure organization of the State has organized only 90 storage facilities in the Taluk level. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the inadequacy of sufficient space to store food grains will create total confusion for storing food grains which will, in turn, materially affect the

¶175

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 37

¶176

supply of food grains through the fair price shops.

¶177

However, in that regard, learned Additional Advocate General invited my attention to the provisions of the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, which is introduced in supersession of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 framed under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On introduction of Order, 2015, the provisions of the Order, 2001 is confined to have effect only against the corresponding provisions of Order, 2015 in any State, which has not implemented the Food Security Act or is implementing the said Act only in part.

¶178

According to the State Government, the State has introduced the provisions of the Act on and with effect from November, 2016 onwards and therefore, the provisions of Order, 2015 is applicable to the State Government. Therein the authorized agency is defined to mean: the concerned Department of State Government or a body corporate or a company owned by it, or a co-operative, which thus means, as per the provisions of Order, 2015, the State Government is duty bound to take up the responsibility of distribution of the food grains to the Targeted Public Distribution System. It is

¶179

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 38

¶180

also true, a co-operative society may be an organization entitled to secure the distribution of food grains. But, however, in the State of Kerala, the State Government have decided to appoint the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation as the authorized agency in accordance with the provisions of Order, 2015. That apart, clause 7 of Order, 2015 imperatively casts a duty on the State Government to lift food grains from

¶181

the designated depots of the Corporation through its authorized agency. Therefore, looking at any angle, the responsibility to implement the provisions of the Act, 2013 is completely loaded on the State Government. Therefore, the State Government has no manner of escape from the provisions of the Act in order to ensure uninterrupted supply of the food grains in accordance with the scheme launched by the Central Government, Ministries and other organizations.

¶182

True, consequent to the introduction of the provisions of Act, 2013, the service rendered by the Authorized Wholesale Depot Dealers is given a go-by. But the State Government has no other option than to introduce the provisions of the Act, 2013. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the Authorized Wholesale Depot Dealers are eliminated as a

¶183

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 39

¶184

consequential sequence for facilitating introduction of the provisions of Act, 2013.

¶185

The petitioners have a case that the State Government has not prepared sufficiently in order to protect, implement and cater the needs in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2013. However, from the arguments advanced by learned Additional Advocate General, and the Standing Counsel of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, it is distinctively clear that the arrangements made by the State Government with the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, a fully owned State agency is sufficient enough to lift the food grains from the Central agency and distribute the same through the fair price shops. Anyhow, from the pleadings put forth by the petitioners itself, it is clear, State Government has already invited public contracts from vehicle owners to lift the food grains from the appointed agency to the godowns ensured by it for storage of the food grains. It is an admitted factor, Talukwise storage godowns are also ensured by the State Government/Civil Supplies Corporation, which according to them, is sufficient enough to meet the requirements of the entitled ration card holders.

¶186

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 40

¶187

Above all the implementation of the provisions of the Act, 2013, in my considered opinion is possible only by making unified approach with utmost responsibility and skillful and balanced approach. Intervention of any private agency in that process is absolutely eliminated, evident from the methodological precision of the provisions of the Act.

¶188

Yet another contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that in order to ensure a corrupt free supply, the information and communication technology tools for ensuring transparent recording of transactions is bound to be introduced by the State Government, which is not complete in all respects and therefore, the endeavour now made by the State Government to implement the provisions of Act, 2013 is likely to fail and thereby the ration card holders will be put to much difficulties and inconveniences.

¶189

In my considered opinion, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to the inadequate facilities provided by the State Government to implement the provisions of Act, 2013 in a fool-proof manner is not a sustainable argument, since consequent to the implementation of the scheme alone, any shortcomings or

¶190

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 41

¶191

inadequate facilities provided by the State Government can be unearthed. Since an imperative duty is cast on the State Government to make uninterrupted supply of food grains, receipt of which is a right of the ration card holders, there is no reason to think that the State Government will not implement the provisions of the Act, taking note of its seriousness and in accordance with the tenor and terms of Act, 2013. Moreover,

¶192

a duty is cast upon the State to ensure that Article 47 of the Constitution of India, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, is implemented effectively through the provisions of Act, 2013. Accordingly, viewed in that manner State have no option or alternative than to implement the schemes so formulated without any complaint, and that the supply chain so provided under Act, 2013 is not interfered or tampered with, in any manner by private intermediaries, in order to ensure smooth supply to the ration card holders. So also, consequent to the introduction of Act, 2013, more than concern for the welfare of the people, the provisions of the Act have transformed the welfare measure into a right of the citizens, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if in any manner the right is interfered with,

¶193

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 42

¶194

the same will tell upon the administration and implementation of the provisions of Act, 2013, on the State Government and it will have its own far reaching consequences and ramifications. Therefore, under no circumstances, it can be believed that the State Government will tinker with the provisions of the Act, 2013 and Order, 2015 in any manner of whatsoever nature.

¶195

Above all, petitioners are operating as per the licenses provided to them under the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 constituted under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Consequent to the introduction and implementation of Sec.97 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, with effect from 05.08.2011, and by virtue of the second Schedule thereunder, any other order, apart from the orders specifically mentioned in Serial Nos.2 to 7 as per Serial No.8 of the second Schedule relating to food shall stand repealed. This is also a clear and convincing indicative factor to arrive at a safe conclusion that petitioners have no legal right to put forth any claim on the basis of the licenses so issued.

¶196

Sequel to the above discussion is that there are no illegalities, arbitrariness, unfairness or any sort of malafides on

¶197

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 43

¶198

the part of the respondents, for this Court to sustain the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the writ petitions. However, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the foodgrains are stored by the Wholesale Depot Dealers, and all on a sudden, if the provisions of the Act is implemented, the Authorized Wholesale Dealers would be put to innumerable difficulties and losses. However, the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order itself prohibits any sale of ration articles to outside agencies and further the State Government as per the provisions of the Rationing Order, is duty bound to take back the articles from the Authorized Dealers in the event of any such contingencies and circumstances. The State Government shall take necessary steps to receive back the ration articles remaining unsupplied with the Authorized Dealers at the earliest possible time.

¶199

So also, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2230 of 2017 has submitted Ext.P10 representation before the State Government putting forth certain suggestions, which can be considered by the State Government, without causing any manner of prejudice to the implementation of the provisions of Act, 2013. So also, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8052 of 2017

¶200

W.P.(C) No.781 of 2017 & conn. cases 44

¶201

is a co-operative society, notified as an authorized agency under Order, 2015. It is for the State Government to consider such claims put forth in due course.

¶202

The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed, subject to the above observations.

¶203

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶204

//true copy//

¶205

P.S. to Judge

¶206

St/22.03.2017

Ambujakshi Amma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambujakshi Amma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Koshy Varghese Vs Mr.Unnikrishnan Nair

Fancy Resorts and Convention Centre Private Limited Vs Sub Registrar

Bizarrre Business Corporation Limited Vs State of Kerala

Geetha Puthiyapurayil Vs District Collector, Kannur

Mohamad Shafi Vs Regional Passport Officer

Engineering Projects (India)Ltd Vs M/S Hll Life Care Ltd.