Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the Madhya Pradesh (Foodstuffs) Civil Supplies Public Distribution Scheme, 1981, which replaced the earlier system of running fair price shops through retail dealers with a scheme to run them through consumers’ cooperative societies. The petitioners challenged the new scheme, arguing it violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, claiming it created a monopoly in favor of cooperative societies and was arbitrary. The High Court dismissed their writ petitions, leading to Special Leave Petitions to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the scheme, stating that it did not infringe on the petitioners' rights to trade, as they could still operate as wholesale or retail dealers under existing licensing orders. The Court emphasized that the decision to run fair price shops through cooperative societies was a policy matter, and the scheme was designed to ensure equitable distribution of foodstuffs at fair prices. The Court found no evidence of arbitrariness or irrationality in the scheme, noting that the preference for cooperative societies was based on their distinct role in the economy. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions with costs, affirming the scheme's constitutionality and the government's discretion in implementing it.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality Before Law - Concept of Equality - Unequal treatment of equals permissible - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - The Court held that even among equals, unequal treatment is permissible based on intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved. Consumers’ cooperative societies form a distinct class, justifying the preference given to them in the scheme (Paras 756-757). B) Administrative Law - Policy Decisions - Court's Role in Policy Matters - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 162 - The Court determined that the decision to run fair price shops through cooperative societies was a policy matter, and the Court refrained from interfering in such executive decisions (Paras 758-759). C) Constitutional Law - Right to Trade - No Fundamental Right to Appointment as Agent - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19(1)(g) - The Court concluded that the scheme does not infringe the petitioners’ right to trade in foodgrains, as there is no fundamental right to be appointed as an agent of a fair price shop under a Government scheme (Paras 758-759).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Madhya Pradesh (Foodstuffs) Civil Supplies Public Distribution Scheme, 1981, violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the validity of the Madhya Pradesh (Foodstuffs) Civil Supplies Public Distribution Scheme, 1981, and affirming that it did not infringe the petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity
- fair price shops
- cooperative societies
- arbitrariness
- equality before law
