IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 952 of 2005. Decided on: 8.5.2008. _______________________________________________________ The Dhelu Gram Sewa Cooperative Society Ltd. at Dahog. … Petitioner. Versus The Secretary (Food & Supply), Govt. of H.P. & others. … Respondents. _____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’bl Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Neena Guleria, Advocate, vice counsel. __________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner-Society has been registered to perform the functions of distribution of agricultural in-puts and essential commodities under the Public Distribution System. The petitioner-Society (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner for convenience sake) was running three Fair Price Shops at Dhelu, Ladruhin and Tikaroo Mushera. The respondent No.3 submitted an application to the respondent No.2 for the allotment of Fair Price Shop at Dohag. The application was received by the respondent No.2 on 15th September, 2004. The application was put up before the District Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi on 31.12.2004. No decision was taken by the Committee at the instance of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, who intimated the Committee that the petitioner-Society may be interested _________________________________________________________________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 in opening its Sub-Depot at the proposed place. The petitioner-Society passed a resolution on 10.4.2005 objecting to the allotment of fair price shop to respondent No.3. Eventually, the District Level Committee decided to allot the fair price shop to respondent No.3 in its meeting held on 23.6.2005. Mr. Digvijay Singh has strenuously argued that the allotment of fair price shop at village Dohag pursuant to the recommendations made by the District Level Committee to Respondent No.3 on 23.6.2005 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Singh further argued that it was necessary for respondents No. 1 & 2 to invite applications for the allotment of the fair price shop at Dohag instead of considering the application of respondent No.3 alone in the meeting held on 23.6.2005. He then contended that the Cooperative Society had preferential right for the allotment of fair price shop. Learned Additional Advocate General had supported the decision dated 23.6.2005. Ms. Neena Guleria had also supported the decision dated 23.6.2005 and had also submitted that as per letter dated 28.5.2005, there is no need for obtaining ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Cooperative Institutions for the allotment of fair price shop to other categories. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. It is evident from the facts narrated hereinabove that the petitioner-Society is running fair price shops at three places, namely; Dhelu, Ladruhin and Tikaroo Mushera. The respondents No. 1 & 2 have not issued any public notice inviting applications for the allotment of fair price shop at Dohag. It was incumbent upon the respondents No. 1 & 2 to inform the general public at large to submit their applications in the preference as provided under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. The fact of not giving wide publicity by the respondents No. 3 1 & 2 had resulted in submission of only one application by respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 had stated in her application (Annexure R-4) that she was Matriculate and there was no Sub-Depot at Dohag and the Gram Panchayat had given ‘No Objection Certificate’ for the opening of Sub-Depot at Dohag. The meeting of the District Level Committee was held on 31.12.2004. The same, as noticed above, was deferred at the instance of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies who insisted that the petitioner-Society could also be interested in opening fair price shop at Dohag. The petitioner-Society passed a resolution on 10.4.2005 resisting the claim of respondent No.3. The copy of the resolution, it appears, was also sent to the Registrar and also to the Controller (Food & Supply), Mandi. It appears that the resolution passed by the petitioner-Society was not considered at all by the Public Distribution Committee in its meeting held on 23.6.2005. The only excuse given for not considering the case of the Society was that no formal application had been submitted by it. The Committee after its deliberations on 31.12.2004 could ask the Society to submit the application through the office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society. It appears that the decision has been taken by the Committee at the instance of Panchayat/applicant which is contrary to law. The Committee, i.e. the District Level Committee, could not take up and decide the single application of respondent No.3. It is evident from the material placed on record by the parties that the fair price shops are to be allotted to Cooperative Societies, Ex-servicemen, Handicapped Persons, Mahila Mandal, unemployed educated persons or H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation. However, as discussed hereinabove, the Committee had decided to consider and allot the fair price shop at Dohag to respondent No.3 without advertising the same. If the respondents No. 1 & 2 had advertised and given a wide publicity of its intention to open fair price shop, the other desirous categories could also apply. The decision of the Committee to consider the sole applicant is arbitrary. The State largess has to be distributed in a just, fair and transparent manner. 4 The Society had also passed various resolutions and made representations to the higher Authorities against the arbitrary allotment of fair price shop to respondent No.3. These have not been addressed to by the respondent No.1 & 2. The petitioner-Society was always ready and willing to run the fair price shop at Dohag but has been arbitrarily excluded. Consequently, the Civil Writ Petition is allowed. The decision dated 23.6.2005, whereby fair price shop had been allotted to respondent No.3 along with letter dated 5.8.2005 is quashed and set aside. The respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to invite fresh applications strictly as per Himachal Pradesh Specified Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 2003 amended up-to-date and also in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in LPA No. 14 of 2007, Shri Yub Raj Vs. The Hallan-1 Coopertive Consumers Store Ltd. Baltha & Ors. decided on 29.10.2007. The entire process of selection will be completed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 with in a period of ten weeks. However, in the interest of justice and to maintain regular supply of essential commodities at village Dohag, the respondent No.3 is permitted to run the fair price shop till the new allotment is made. The respondent No.3 can also submit fresh application for the allotment of fair price shop. The respondent No.3 will immediately vacate the fair price shop after the issuance of fresh allotment order. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. May 8, 2008. (cr)