Dismissed

Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh Society & Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Supreme Court22 Sept 19811981 INSC 171 · [1982] 1 S.C.R. 7501981 INSC 171

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Madhya Pradesh (Foodstuffs) Civil Supplies Public Distribution Scheme, 1981, which replaced retail dealers with agents appointed under a Government scheme giving preference to consumers' cooperative societies. The Court held that the scheme was not arbitrary, irrational, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) as it served the public interest equitable

What did the court decide?

Special Leave Petitions were dismissed with costs.

What the court decided

Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Supreme Court (1982)

A 750

' f

MADHYA PRADESH RATION VIKRETA SANGH

¶5

SOCIETY & ORS. ETC. ETC.

¶6

¶7

¶8

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

¶9

September 22, 1981

¶10

[R.S. PATHAK AND A.P. SEN, JJ.]

¶11

¶12

Constitution of India, 1950, Art, 14, and Madhya Pradesh (Foodstuffs) Civil Supplies Public Distribution Scheme, !981-Distribution of foodstuffs at fair prices-Scheme of running fair price shop through retail dealers-Replacement of-Fair price shops by agents appointed by Government with preference to co· optrative societies-Such Seheme whether valid.

Art. 14-Concept of equality-Equality before law-Unequal treotn1ent of equals-Whether permissible-Advocates whether can form consumer's cooperative society.

¶18

The Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution) Control Order, 1960, "'as promulgated by the State Government, in exercise- of the powers conferred by section 3 read with s. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to enable the State Government to distribute foodstuffs at fair prices through fair price shops. Jn 1977, the State Government decided to appoint unemployed graduates as retail dealers of Government fair price shops. The whole system of distribution of foodstuffs at fair price shops to the consumers coUapsed due to flagrant violations of the Control Order by the retail dealers.

¶19

In July 1980, the Govern1nent decided that the fair· price shops should be run by consumers' cooperative societies. Pursuant to this 1 on October 31, 1980, the Stat~ Government an1ended the Control Order by deleting the provisions relating to fair price shops through retail dealers and providing for running of the fair price shops under a Government scheme. On March 20, 1981, the State Government pron1ulgated the Madhya Pradesh (Foodstuffs) Civil Supplies Public Distribution Scheme, 1981, replacing the earlier Scheme. The Scheme envisaged allotment of shops to the public by inviting applications from it by notification, giving preference to co-operative societies. The important feature of the Sche1ne was that the fair price shops \Vere to be run under the direct control and supervision of the Collector and that the fair price shop-keeper was required to keep sufficient stocks of foodstuffs to prevent hardship and inconvenience to the consumers.

¶20

¶21

The petitioners filed writ petitions in the High Court, contending that the introduction of the new schen1e for running of Government fair price shops by

¶22

751

¶23

¶24

M.P.R. VIKRETA SA1'GH v. M.P. STATE

. '

•

agents to be appointed under a G0ver·.1ment scheme, giv;ng preference to cooperative societies, in replacement of the earlier Scheme .bf running fair price shops through retail dealers, was violative of Arts. 14 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution. The contention was rejected and the writ po;:titions dismissed.

¶32

In the Special Leave P~titions to this Court, it was contended that although there was no objection to a State monopoly in trade, the action of the Government should not be arbitrary, irrational and irrelevant, and that arbitrariness was writ large in the formulation of the Scheme inasmuch as there was selection of co-operative societies of all descriptions to run the fair price shops and therefore the Scheme was, in fact, not being implemented to carry out its professeJ object.

¶33

¶34

Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions,

¶35

¶36

HELD : 1. The Scheme in no way infringes the petitioners' right to carry on their trade in foodgrains. They are free to carry on business as wholesale or retail dealers in foodgrains by taking out licences under the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains (Licensing) Order, 1964. There is no fundamental right in any one to be appointed as an agent of a fair price shop under a Government Scheme. [758FJ

¶37

Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh, Tehsil Ban1atra and Or.r. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. WP No. 4186 of 01 decided on August 25, 1981 and R.D. Shelly v Airport Authority, [1979] 3 SCR 1014 at 1042 referred to.

¶38

¶39

The question whether fair pri..:e shops in the State under a Government Scheme should be directly run by the Government through the instrumentality of consumers' cooperative societies as its agents or by retail dealers to be appointed by the Collector is essentially a matter of policy with which the Court is not concerned. (758 CJ

¶40

The wider concept of equality before the Jaw and the equal protection of laws is that there shall be equality an1ong equals. Even among equals there can be unequal treatment based on an inteUigible differentia having a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved. Consumers' cooperative societies form a distinct clasS by themselves. (757 E·F]

¶41

•

¶42

The impugned scheme neither suffers from arbitrariness nor is it irrational to the object sought to be achieved. It was evolved in exercise of the executive power of the State Government under Art. 162 of the Constitution after the earlier Scheme was found unworkable as a result of flagrant violations of the provisions of the Control Order by unscrupulous retail dealers. Entrusting the distribution of foodstuffs to consumers' cooperative societies was an inevitable step which was taken by the Government in the interest of the general public. Giving preference to the consumers' cooperative societies could not be said to be arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The Scheme lays down detailed guidelines regulating the manner of grant or refusal of such applications. [756 H-757 E]

¶43

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 4034, 4350, 4270, 4536·38 and 5074 of 1981.

¶44

¶45

752

¶46

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[ 1982] ] S.C.R

I •

From the judgment and order dated the 13th April, 1981 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Misc. Petition Nos. 723/80, 874/80, 797/80, 833/80, 91/81, 169/81 and 91/81 respectively.

¶51

Swaraj Kaushal for the petitioners in SLP Nos. 4270/81 and B 4350/81.

¶52

S.S. Khanduja for the petitioners in SLP Nos. 4536-38/81 and 5074/81.

¶53

A.K. Sen, V.S .. Dabir, Dr. N. M. Ghatate and S. V. Deshp.inde C for the petitioners in SLP No. 4034/81.

¶54

¶55

Gopal Subramanium, D.P. Mohanty and R.A. Shrojj for the Respondents in SLP Nos. 4270/81, 4350/81, 4536-38/81 and 5074/81.

¶56

¶57

Gopal Subramnium, D.P. Mohanty and S.A. Shrojj; for the Respondent in SLP No. 4034/81.

¶58

The Order of the Court was delivered by

¶59

¶60

¶61

SEN, J. The only question involved in this and the connected Special Leave Petitions directed against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is whether the Madhya Pradesh (Food-stuffs) Civil Supplies Public Distribution Scheme, 1981, formulated by the State Government under sub-cl.(d) of cl. 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Foodsuffs (Distribution) Control Order, 1960, introducing a new scheme for running of Government fair price shops by agents to be appointed under a Government scheme giving preference to cooperative societies, in replacement of the earlier scheme of running such fair price shops through retail dealers appointed under cl. 3 of the Order, is violative of Arts. 14 and 19 (I) (g) of the Constitution.

•

To give a short resume. The Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution) Control Order, 1960 (hereinafter called the 'Control Order') was made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred bys. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Departof Food), Order No. GSR 1088 dated Noveoiber 15, 1958, to provide for distribution of foodstuffs at fair prices under a Government Scheme. The scheme of the Control Order is that with a view to

¶66

M.P.R. VJKRETA SANGH v. M.P. STATE (Sen, J.)

753

, '

•

distributing food-stuffs at fair prices through fair price shops, the Collector would, under the 'Government Scheme', appoint any person as a retail dealer in respect of foodstuffs under cl. 3 of the Control Order. The Control Order was designed to enable the State Government to distribute foodstuffs at fair prices through fair price shops. In 1977, as a matter of policy it was decided to appoint unemployed graduates as retail dealers of Government fair price shops. The whole system of distribution of foodstuffs at fair price shops to the consumers, however, collapsed due to flagrant violations of the Control Order by the retail dealers. It was found that the shops were opened well after the appointed time, shops were closed well before the time, the consumers were not able to obtain their ration easily and very often the traders would withhold the foodstuffs in stock and refuse to sell the same to the consumers, causing serious inconvenience and harassment to them. Another great drawback which the Government experienced was that stocks which were required to be lifted by the traders were not lifted within the time and more often than not the stocks would become wasted and rendered useless.

¶74

In July 1980, the Chief Minister called a Conference of high officials including the Director, Civil and Food Supplies and the Collectors of various districts. The Collectors narrated their experience about the unsatisfactory manner of working of the then existing system of running fair price shops through retail dealers and spoke of the plight of the poor consumer. There was a meaningful, close and in-depth discussion at the Conference and in the light of the experience gained, the Government decided that it was necessary to replace the existing system of running fair price shops through retail dealers by the Government directly running these fair price shops through agents appointed by the Collector. It was also decided that these fair price shops should be run by consumers' coorerative societies. In the wake of the changes to be brought about, the State Government, on October 31, 1980, accordingly amending the Control Order by deleting the provisions relating to running of fair price shops through retail dealers and providing for running these shops under a Government scheme. The expression 'fair price shop' has been defined by the newly added clause 2 (bb) to mean a shop set up by the Government under the Government Scheme. On March 20, 1981, the State Government promulgated the Madhya Pradesh (Foodstuffs) Civil Supplies Public Distribution Scheme, 1981.

754

[1982] I s.c.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

I ,

Under the impugned scheme, the Collector, by virtue of cl. 3, was to establish fair price shops. In establishing the fair shops, the Collector was to follow certain guidelines. These are : (a) that a shop should be established for each area with a population of 2,000 and the consumers should not be required to travel more than 5 Km, for purchasing foodstuffs, (b) in the urban areas for the purpose of demarcation of areas, a Ward or a Mohalla is a unit and in rural areas, the Panchayat is a unit, (c) the location of fair price shop shall be, as far as possible, in the centre of such area, for meeting the requirements of the residence for which it is established. Clause 4 provided that the fair price shops would be allotted by the Sub Divisional Officer and the allottee will have no legal ownership over the fair price shops. Then a set of guidelines was also issued for the purpose of regulating the manner of allotment of fair price shops. In making the allotment of fair price shops, cooperative societies were to be given top priority. In the event ofa cooperative society in the area expressing its inability in writing to run a fair price shop, or if there was no such cooperative society in existence in such an area, the fair price shop may be allotted to others. The allotment of a fair price shop was to be made after publication of a notifiication inviting applications for allotment from the public. The applications received were to be scruitinised on merits and the one who fulfilied the maximum qualifications shall be allotted the shop. Another set of principles was laid down dealing with the manner of working of fair price shops, but they are matters of detail. One important feature is that the faire shops are to be run under the direct control and supervision of the Collector and the other important feature is that the fair price shop keeper was required to keep sufficient stocks of foodstuffs as specified by the State Government or the Collector in that behalf, to prevent hardship and Inconvenience to the consumers.

•

The validity of the impugned scheme has been unheld by this Court in Sarkari Sasta Anoj Vikreta San?h, Tehsil Bamatra and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. decided on August 26, 1981. The main challenge was that the scheme created a monopoly in trade in favour of cooperative societies and was thus violative of Arts. 14 and I 9 (!) (g) of the Constitution. This Court, agreeing with the High Court, rejected the contention in view of Manna/a/ Jain v. State of Assam and Ors.(') In that case, the questinn was whether cl. 5 (e)

¶97

~·

¶98

(!) [ 1962] 3 SCR 936.

¶99

755

¶100

M.P.R. VIKRETA SANGH v. M.P. STATE (Sen, J.)

of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961, which provided for giving preference to cooperative societies created a monopoly in trade in favour of cooperative societies. On a construe· ti on of cl. S (e) which merely embodied a rule of preference in favour of cooperative societies, this Court in 'vfannalal Jain's case(supra) held that cl. 5 (e) did not have the effect of creating a monopoly in favour of cooperative societies. In upholding the validity of cl. S (e), the Court observed :(¹ )

¶106

We are of the view that by reason of the position which cooperative societies may occupy in the village economy of a particular area, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that sub-cl. (e) of cl. S of the Control Order, 1961, is unrelated to the objects mentioned in s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. There may be places or areas where cooperative societies are in a better position for maintaining or increasing supplies of rice and paddy and even for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices.

¶107

The Court, therefore, repelled the contention that cl. 5 (e) had no relation whatever to the objects mentioned in s. 3 of the Act and went on to say : (')

¶108

¶109

Sub-cl. (e) of cl. 5, we have already stated, enables the licensing authority to give preference to a cooperative society in certain circumstances; but it does not create a monopoly in favour of cooperative societies. The preference given has a reasonable relation to the objects of the legislation set out in s. 3 of the Act.

•

In the Sarkari Sas/a Anaj Vikreta Sangh case the impugned scheme was also challenged on various other grounds but the court negati· ved all the contentions raised and we need not refer to them as they are not really relevant for our purposes. Suffice it to say, the Court pointed out that the scheme had been framed by the State Government in exercise of its executive function under Art. 162 of the Constitution; that under the scheme the fair price shops were to be run by consumers' cooperative societies; that the scheme was framed by the State Government in public interest with a view to securing equitable distribution of foodgrains at fair prices to the

,..> ,,...

(!) [1962) 3 SCR 936 at 949. (2) Ibid at951.

¶118

756

¶119

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶120

[1982] I S.C.R

¶121

I '

¶122

consumers, that the rule of preference to cooperative societies does not create a monopoly in trade and is, therefore, not violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution; and that no one had a fundamental right to be appointed a Government agent for running a fair price shop which was a matter of grant of privilege. The validity of the impugned B 'cheme has, therefore, been upheld in all its aspects.

¶123

Jn support of these petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the real point was not pressed in the Sarkari Sas/a Anaj Vikreta Sangh's case (supra). He contends that there is no objection to a State monopoly in trade, the action of the Governc ment should not be arbitrary, irrational and irrelevant. If the governmental action disclose arbitrariness, it is to be invalidated as violative of Art. 14. Jn support of the contention, he places reliance on certain observations of Bhagwati, J. in the Airport Authority case('). Jn dealing with the question, Bhagwati, J. observed :

¶124

¶125

¶126

It is now well settled ...... that Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory; it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations, because that would be denial of equality ...... The State connot, therefore. act arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or otherwise with a third party, but its action must conform to some standard or norm which is rational and non-discriminatory.

¶127

The observations made by Bhagwati, J. in the Airport Authority case F (supra) have been quoted with approval in Kasturi Lal v. State of J & K(').

¶128

It is true that according to the rule laid down in the Airport Authority case (supra) if governmental action disclosed arbitrariness, it would be liable to be in validated as offending against Art. 14. G There can be no quarrel with the principles laid down in that case, but the difficulty is about the application of those principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We have given a brief outline of the impugned scheme and it cannot be said that it suffers from arbitrariness or is irrational to the object sought to be achiev~d.

¶129

•

¶130

¶131

(1) R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority [1979] 3 SCR 1014 at 1042.

¶132

(2J [ 19so1 1 sec 1.

¶133

M.P.R. VIKRETA SANGH v. M.P. STATE (Sen, J.) 757

¶134

¶135

-- f

¶136

The State Government after due deliberation, took a responsible decision to run the fair price shops directly, being satisfied that it was necessary so to do with the object of distributing foodstuffs at fair prices to the consumers, after taking into consideration the fact that the earlier experiment of running these shops through retail dealers was an utter failure. The scheme has been designed by the State Government by executive action under Art. 162 of the Constitution with a view to ensuring equitable distribution of foodstuffs at fair prices. As already stated, the Court has found in the Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikteta Sangh case (supra), the entire system of distribution of foodstuffs had collapsed and had become wholly unworkable due to flagrant violations of the provisions of the Control Order by the retail dealers. The action of the State Government in entrusting the distribution of foodstuffs to consumers' cooperative societies, though drastic, was an inevitable step taken in the interests of the general public. The State Government was not bound to give the fair price shops to the retail dealers under a Government scheme. The governmental action in giving preference to consumers' cooperative societies cannot be construed to be arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The impugned scheme does not confer arbitrary or uncanalised power ou the Collector in the matter of grant or refusal of applications for appointment as agents for the purpose of running fair price shops. The scheme lays down detailed guidelines regulating the manner of grant or refusal of such applications.

¶137

The wider concept of equality before the law and the equal ptotection of laws is that there shall be equality among equals. Even among equals there can be unequal treatment based on an intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved. Consumers' cooperi.tive societies form a distinct class by themselves. Benefits and concessions granted to them ultimately benefit persons of small means and promote social justice in accordance with the directive principles. There is an intelligible differentia between the retail dealers who are nothing but traders and consumers' cooperative societies. The position would have been different if there was a monopoly created in favour of the later. The scheme only envisages a rule of preference. The formulation of the scheme does not exclude the retail traders from making an application for appointment as agents. It is, however, urged that the impugned scheme is not being implemented as to carry out its avowed object. It was said that there was arbitrariness in selection of cooperative societies of all descriptions, not necessarily consumers' cooperative societies. There is no merit in the contention

758

[1982] 1 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶148

\ -

¶149

¶150

A that there was preferential treatment given to cooperative societies in the matter of allotment of fair price shops. Our attention was drawn to the fact that a fair price shop has been allotted to Adhivakta (Advocates) Sangh, Jabalpur. Advocates are also consumers and there is nothing to prevent them from forming a consumers' cooperative scciety for lawyers as a class if they fulfil the conditions B laid down in the law. We have no reason to think that the State Government was not actuated with the best of mtentions in bringing about a change in the system of distribution of foodstuffs through fair price shops.

¶151

The question whether fair price shops in the State of Madhya c Pradesh under a Government scheme should be directly run by the Government through the instrumentality of consumers' cooperative societies as its agents or by retail dealers to be appointed by the Collector under cl. 3 of the Control Order, is essentially a matter of policy with which the Court is not concerned. The learued couusel for the State reiterated the assurance given in the Sarkar/ Sasta D Anaj Vikreta Sangh case (supra), as was done by the learned Advocate General before the High Court, that by the expression "cooperative societies" in the scheme, the Government intended and meant "consumers' cooperative societies", and that if by mistake there was a wrong allotment made to a 'cooperative society' which was not a "consumers' cooperative society', the Government E would take steps to cancel the allotment.

¶152

The constitutionality of the impugned scheme is also challenged as abridging Art. 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. The short answer to the challenge is that the scheme in no way infringes the petitioners' right to carry on their trade in foodgrains. They are free to carry F on business as wholesale or retail dealers in foodgrains by taking out licences under the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains (Licensing) Order, J 964. There is no fundamental right in any one to be appointed as an agent of a fair price shop under Government Scheme.

¶153

G ··

¶154

Accordingly, we dismiss the Special Leave Petitions with costs.

¶155

Petitions dismissed.

¶156

N.V.K.

¶157

•

Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh Society & Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh Society & Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

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

S. Gopa Kumar versus State of Kerala & Kerala Public Service Commission

Ludhichem Agencies etc. versus Ahmed R.V. Peer Mohamed and Anr.

Math Sauna and Ors. versus Kedar Nath @ Uma Shankar & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Binny and Hansraj versus State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi versus Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd.

Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (Huf), Kanpur versus the C. I T., Kanpur