Jli^O f^^^f S^T" f°KV EE ??*^>i(?*<- ATS ^ra^ «'*t'LJ?-!'^T'TlIfih^*^ Ji. !ES?.^E« ES'E .'5l & F*^i S l-iiUH UUUKI Ui- JUUiUAi UKfc l«>MKAi S ISUAKMI^BiLASKUK S!N©LSBSNCH : HON'BLE SSTtTI^^ISSS y^ 111 IUN^K sgffconMncMTS i '^.auiiif ;j~ ^rfr'a Sirifiuina 3 frjtPeBtioniC)No.483o_of 2006 Eandhan Mitti Tel Hav/kers Sharamik Sahkari Samiti Maryadit BerSa, Bsock Beria, District Durg, C.G. Through its Presldent Shatrughan Lai Tandan S/o Shri BuddiTj Ram R)'O Aged about 45 years, VHSage Boriya Tehs'i & iock Beria Districi Durg, Chhattisgarh Vs. 4. <s Union of Ina'ia, Through the Secretar,', Msnlstry of PetroisuT! and Naturai Gas, ShasfrE Bhawan, New Oeihi Stete of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretery, Department of Food & Civii Suppiy, D.K.S. Bhawan, ^4antraEays Raipur, (C-.G.) The Coilector, Disfrict Durg, Durg, (C.G.) The Food Controiier, Dlstrict Durg, C.G. Sub Dlvisiona'i Officer, Saja, Dists-ict Dura, C.G. 'resent: Shri Satyendra Sahu, ieasned GounseS for the petitioner. Shri Bhishma Kinger, Centrsi Government standing counse', for respondeht No.1 Shri Yashwant Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the Stats ofC.G. and Its authorities. Ui (Passed on 6"'' Ssptember, 2006) Ths petitioner is a soclety of Eandhan hawkers of Bsrla Biock in Durg District. The members of the petitioners-society was granted authorization for seiiing of kerosens to the consumers coming under Beria Block under the then exist'sng poiicy. The Central Government revissd the s!icy and issued a new poiicy with efrect from 2 October, 2005. That Is •the latsst policy which hoids ths fieid. As per this policy, kerossne has.to ^- be distrihuted to the consumers only through fasr price shops. In vlew of this new policy, the respondents did not contlnue the authorizatlon eariier granted to the petjtioner-society beyond 2" October, 2005. On an sariier occasion, the petstioner-society had filed Writ Petition No.110 of 2QOS in this Court complainlng that a representation made by it to the Sub Djvlslonai Officer Saja, Dlstrict Durg, ths 5"' respondent herein, was not at aii consSdered. in that view of the mattsr, this Court yide its ordsr dated 12/1f2006 disposed of the writ petition direGting the 5"' respondent to consider the represenSation of the petitioner to grant it authorization.. After the said writ petition was disposed of on 12/1/2006, it appears that the petitloner hereln caused a legal notlcs on the 5L" respondent to consider and disposs of its representation as ciirected by this Court. In response to that iegal notlce, the 5 respondent sent hls reply dated 18.2.2006, a copy cf which is marked at pages 40 and 41 of the materiaS papere appended to the wrlt petition. The petltioner-Society was inforined that it is not entitled to authorization for seiiing kerosene In vlsw of the new poiicy 'A'hich came into foree from 2 October, 2005. Being aggrleved by that action, the pressnt writ petitloR is fiied. Quite curiousiy the petitioner has sought the foliowina reiiefs: SS^' ^ iS f . i~\.i^ ? ^s ;F SOUGHT in view of the above facts and circumstancss the petitionei 7.1 That, this Hon'bie High Court may kindly be pieased to prohibit / quash the entlre proceeding of the Respondents by which supply of kerosens oil to Hawkers of the Beria Block District Durg, C.G. have been stopped without prior notice and wit'nout an opportunity of hearing. 7.2 That, this Kon'bie Hiyh Court may kindly be pisssed to direct the Resoondents for supply of kero§ei»A—^!to fc^ Hawkers of the Beria Block District Durg, C.G. / the members of the society as given before the October 2005 by cornmanding Writ Mandamus. 7.3 That, this Hon'bie High Court may kindiy be pieased to direct ths Respondents to make rehabiiitatlon shceme for Hawkers of ths Beria Biock Dis'trict Durg, C.G. before Implementation of Jan Kerosene Yojna (Piiot Project) by commandins Writ of Mandamus 7.4 That, this Hon'ble Hig'n Court may kindiy be pleased to direct the rsspondents to rehabilitate the semce of the Hawkers oft'ne Beria BIock Dlstrict Durg, C.G. / members of the petitioner society before the implementation of Jan Kerosene Yojna a.t Beria Biock District Durg in distributlon of Kerosens oi! by commanding Writ of Mandsmus. 7.5 That, this Hon'bte High Court may kindly be pleased to dlrect the respondents to decide the representatlons of the ^r-j [v if :^n^"Fi petrtioner society ii rts ngn? perspective wrenin restnciea time frame by commanding Writ of Mandamus. 7.6 That, this Hon'bie High Court may kindiy be pieased to direct the respondent to cornpensate the undue sufferin^ of the Hawkers of the Beria Biock District Durg, C.G. / members of the petitioner society 'oy issuing Writ of Mandamus. 7.7 That, this Hon'bie High Court may kindly be pleased to call the sntire records relevant to above petition for kind perusal ofthis Hon'ble Court. 7.8 T'nat, this Hon'bie High Court may kindiy be pieased to pass any other writ, dirsctions, rslief or order whtch the pstitioner society is entitled and the Hon'bie High Court may deem it fit may kindly be passed in the favour of t'ne petitioner. 7.9 That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pieassd to dirsctths Rsspondents to provide the cost ofthe petttion". t'2) The Detittoner Is not entitied to anv of the reiiefs ciaimed. !t needs to be noticsd that the power of the Central Government to frame appropriate policy for seiiing kerosene to the consumers intended to be covered under the policy cannot be doubted. Simiiarty, it is the power of the CentraS Government to change th®policy from time to time to meet the needs of ths consumers and also avoid maipractices in the distribution of the kerosene to the intended customers. Accordingly, the Centrat Government in substifution of the earfter poiicy framed new policy with effsct from 2nd October, 2005, covering eteven blocs<s of seven districts incSuding Beria block in Durg district, as per which kei'ossne has to be distributed to the intended consumers oniy through fair price shops. The said policy is not assaiied in this writ petition. in the firet piace, the v.?isdom of poSicy car.not lightiy be interfered with by the Court unless it is shovv'n that the poi'scy is the on®which is dsscernibiy violates the postulates of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no nsec' for me to diiate on this aspect further, because, th'are is no chailenge to the poiicy. In view of ths iatsst policy under which ths petitioner-Society is not enutled to seek authoi'ization, the refusal of the 5"' respondent or any other Sfats authorities to grant or renew the authorization couid not be fauSSed with. The writ pstifion is devoid of merrt and it is accordingly alsmissed. Nocosts. y^^ j ChiefJustice 'l^