••.-UL. E IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION N0. (o;54- OP 2005 PETITIONERS 1 Ajay Mishra, aged about 42 years, son of Shrinath Mishra, r/o. Ward No. 45, Imlibhata, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ,.-? (•> ^ ^''i •• Meena Shrivastava, aged about 36 'CL^'^(S*">''1/^ years, wife of Shri Ashok ...-?"fL.:'..-- ^i^ Shrivastava, Ward No. 45, Bilaspur ^^^""^•^'r (Chhattisgarh) ^^^ >••' 3 Devcharan Mandale, aged about 33 years, son of Shri Chhotelal, resident of Sodhi Marhadhi, Distt.Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^4. Manoj Kumar Dhuri, aged about 29 years, son of Shri Guruprasad, resident of village Amora, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) / 5. Mohan Jayaswal, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Bhagela Ram, resident of Thakuri Kapa, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) . 6. Neetu Ram Sahu, aged about 25 years, son of Shri Laxminarayan, resident of Karupaan, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) .»., 7. Ravindu Jayasi, aged about 26 years, son of Shri Rajbhan Prasad, resident of Pendri, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) S. t- /8 Rajbhan Pra$ag/, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Dauwa Ram, resident of Danganiyan, Distt. 9. Prema Soni, aged about 32 years, wife of Shri Santosh Soni, resident of Ward No. 53, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). " ,iP / 10. Rajendra Kumar Verma, aged about 33 years, son of Shri Ghundu Rara, resident of village Tekar, ^ll. Ravindra Kumar Verma, aged about 35 years, son of' Shri Narayan Verma, resident of village Dhauramuda, Khadri. ^ '12. Kumari Laxmi Singh, aged about 29 years, daughter of Shri Sunder Singh, resident of village Lingiyadeeh, Distt. Bilaspur. 13. Lalji Sahu, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Ramgopal, resident of village Bahtarayee, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) .«»-iU .^14. Yunush Khan, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Sher Khan, resident of village Ptayeedeeh, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^'15. Manrakhan Lal Sahu, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Dashrath Sahu, resident of village Kokadi, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^-16. Dewanand Yadav, aged about 34 years, son of Shri Latel Ram, resident of village Chorhadewri, Distt.Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) / 17. Chhatrapal Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Charan Singh, resident of village - Dhabaha, Distt.Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 18. 'yuleshwar Kashyap, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Sukdeo Kashyap, resident of village Khaira (Danganiyan), Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 19. Shiv Kumar Yadav, aged about 31 years, son of Shri Punnulal, resident of Ward No. 44, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 20. Rajendra Kumar Burman, aged .•.^u' about 27 years, son of Shri Pyarelal, resident of village Ranakapa (Laata), Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) /21. Shriram Bhaskar, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Dewaram,. Resident of village Maanpur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^22. Rajkumar Dewangan, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Ganesh Prasad, resident of Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^' 23. Santosh Kuamr Sahu, aged about 28 years, son of Shri Rainan, resident of Thakurdeva Nagar, Bilaspur (CG) ^ A 24. gedram Ratre, aged abouit 32 years, son of Shri T.R. Ratre, resident of Bhatuli, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 25. Ramesh Kumar Wastrakar, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Salikram resident of paraghat, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 26. Triloki Verma, aged about 38 years, son of Shri Babulal Resident of village Jalso, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) /27. Jagdish Kashyap, aged about 33 years, son of Shri Bhukhau Ram, resident of village Khursi, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 28. Maniklal Sonwani, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Majru, resident of village Dabo Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ,29. Rajesh Kumar Kashyap, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Bhagwat Prasad Kashyap, resident of village Chhatauna, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ,'30. Madhu Prasad Sahu, aged about 28 years, son of Shri BhagiraW Sahu, resident of village Kunwan, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^ / 31. Rambharosh Yadav, aged about 29 years, son of Shri Baliram Yadav, resident of village Dewgaon, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) <" ,32. Dhan Singh Oindore, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Lakhan Lal, resident of village - Sidhi, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ,, 33. Shatruhan Lal Sonkar, aged about 29 years son of Shri Tetku Ram, resident of village Nawagaon, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) , 34. Jaleshwar Prasad, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Ram Das, resident of village - Goyeendra, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) / 35. Parsadi Singh Rajput, aged about 45 years, son of Shri Mayaram Singh, resident of village Chharbhatha, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) , 36. Gujral Soni, aged about 37 years, son of Shri Shambhu, resident of Village Daantgaon, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ,37 Bajrang Singh Thakur, aged about 27 years, son of Shri Pekhan Singh, resident of village Hathni Kala, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^ 38. Durga Charan Nayak, aged about 37 years, son of Shri Revti Kumar, resident of village Sukulkari, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) / 39. Venkat Raman Jangde, aged about 23 years, son of Shri .»--^ c, resident of village Dainapur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) / 40 Chandra Prakash Kurre, aged about 27 years, son of Shri Dwarika Prasad, resident of village Pachpedi, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) / 41. Bihari Lal, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Tulsiram, resident of village - Keskikala, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) /42. Oame Shankar Madhukar, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Ramadhar, resident of village - Manwa Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ,-'43. Seikh Afzal, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Seikh Naushad, resident of Bhatchaura, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^ 44. Ramu Lal Gond, aged about 27 years, son of Shri Kaleshwar, resident of village Burhikhad, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) '45. Santosh Banjare, aged about 29 years, son of Shri Goverdhan Prasad, resident of village Chakrabedhaha, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^46. Sarju Yadav, aged about 27 years, son of Shri Tribhuwan Yadav, resident of Dhangawan, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) /'47 Dukhuram Sahu, aged about 47 years, son of Shri Bachchuram Sahu, resident of village - Pataita, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) / 48. Kurendra Pratap Sahu, aged about 21 years, son of Shri Ramlal, resident of village Khairjhithi, Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^•9. Deviram Yadav, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Rajaram, resident of village Changori, Kota, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^ .-•50 Motiram Sahu, aged about 50 years, son of Shri Sahadur Sahu, resident of village - Litiya, Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 51. Rameshwar, aged about 29 years, son of Shri Dhelau Ram, resident of village Daunpur, Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) !. Akhileshwar Kumar, aged about 28 years, son of Shri Amar Singh, resident of village Jhingatpur, Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) . 53. R.D. Gupta, aged about 38 years, son of Shri Hanuman Prasad Gupta, resident of village Kalartarayee, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) . 54. Maan Singh Kanwar, aged about 34 years, son of Shri Awadhram, resident of village Billiband, Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 55. Shankar Lal Yadav, aged about 23 years, son of Shri Malik Ram Yadav, resident of village Chherkabhandha, Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 56. Ram. Khilawan Yadav, aged about 39 years, son of Shri Dhamru Ram, resident of village - Dhanras, Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 57. Lokpal Jayaswal, aged about 24 years, son of Shri Ram Bahori, resident of village - Bhainsajhaar, Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 10 /'' 58. Shiv Lal Jayaswal, aged about 43 years, son of Shri Janak Ram, resident of village Nawagaon, Salka, Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) , 59. Tileshar Nayak, aged about 43 years, son of Shri Lakhram, Salka, Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) . 60. Shailendra Gupta, aged about 28 years, son of Shri Suresh Chandra Gupta, resident of village - Rank, Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) '^ 61. Smt Sharaswati Devi Gupta, aged about 47 years, wife of Shri Suresh Chandra Gupta, resident of village - Vishnu Nagar, Ward No.2, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 62 Heeranand Sahu, aged about 31 years, son of Shri Kuleshwar Prasad Sahu, resident of Dharampura, Tah. Mungeli,Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 63 Ranisharan Rajput, aged about 28 years, son of Shri Sukhram Rajput, resident of village Jhaliyapur, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 11 VERSUS RESPONDENTS . ^.^ l^y^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Principal Secretary Department of Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). The Collector, (Food) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). The Food Officer; Bilaspur, Distt.Bilaspur, (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. TO, THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS HON'BLE COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, (CHHATTISGARH) ^ MAY THIS PLEASE TO YOUR LORDSHIPS, The humble petition of the Petitioners named above, most respectfully showeth:- DETAILS OF THE PETITION --^——^-— ^ llc l-'i^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR (Division Bench) CORAM: Hon'bte Shri A.K. Patnaik,CJ & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :fc 's :B- WRIT PETITION N0. 445 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION N0. 578 OF 2005 WR1T PETITION N0.1034 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION N0.1558 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION N0.1518 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION N0.2150 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION N0.2316 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION N0.1397 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION N0.2600 OF 2005 ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- Chief Justice 9 C<^YVf ^ HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \~ POST FOR ORDER: 06/09/2005 ^- Sd/- Chief Justice K ^:. ^^ l-^^ (; 32S l|BB1^^^—^-5' HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR (Division Bench) CORAM : Hon'bte Shri A.K. Patnaik, CJ & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. WRIT PETITION N0.44S OF 2005 Raghuveer Singh Gond Vs. Union of India and others WRIT PETITION N0.578 OF 2005 Ambika Ptasad Rajwade and othere Vs. State of ChhatUsgarh anti others WRIT PETITION N0.1034 OF 2005 Ajay Mtshra and ottiers Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION N0.1558 OF 2005 Ramnarayan Markandeyand others Vs. Union of Indla and others WRIT PETITION N0.1518 OF 2005 Kapil Dev and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION N0.2150 OF 2005 Tulsi Ram and others vs. State ofChhattlsgarti ar.'i others WRIT PETITION N0.2318 OF 2005 Naln Das Gaikwad and others Vs. Unlon of India and others. WRIT PETITION N0.13S? OF 2005 Mahamaya Swayatt Sahkarita Prathniik Upbhokta Bhandar Vs. State of ChhatUsgarh and others. m WRIT PETITION N0.260e OF 2005 BastarZila Thok Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit Vs. The State ofChhattlsgarh and others Present: Mr. Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rahul Jha, Mr. P.K.C. Thwari, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shashibhushan, Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Ali Asgar, Mr. Manindra Shrlvastava, Sr. Adv. wlth Mr. Amrlto Das, Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Mr. Rajiv Shrivastava, Mr. Yashwant Tiwari and Mr. Sudhir Verma, learned counsel for the pstitioner.. Thakur Vijay Singh, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India. Mr. Prashant Mishra, Additional Advocate General, for the State of ChhatBsgarh. ORDER (Passed on 6tn of Septernber, 2005) The following Order of the Court was passed by A.K. Patnaik, CJ: - All these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constiti'tion of India relate to the Chhattisgarh Public D'stribution System (Control) Order, 2004 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. (2) Under Section 3 of the Essentia! Commodities Act, 1955 (for short fhe Act^ the Central Government has been vested with the power to make orders providing for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodity and trade and commerce therein if the Central Govemment is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of an.</ essential comrriodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availabi'ity at fair prices. The Central Govemment delegated this power to the State Giivernments under Section 5 ofthe Act by an order dated 9 of June, 1978 in reiation to food stuffs subject to such conditions as specified in the said order. On 23 of June 2001 the Page 3 of 63 » State Govemment of Chhattisgarh made the Chhattisgarh (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajanik Nagrik Poorti Vitran Scheme; 2001 i>i exercise of such delegated power under Section 3 of the Act for distribution of different foodstuffs through fair price shops. Pursuant to saic Scheme of 2001 , the State Govemment entered into agreements with the petitioners and also issued licences in favour' of the petitioners for running fair price shops at different place in the State of Chhattisgarh. On 31st of August, 2001 the Central Govemment made the Public Disfribution System (Control) Order, 2001 under Section 3 ofthe Act providing for distribution offood grains through fair price shops and provided therein that the State Government shall issue an order under Section 3 of the Act for regulating the sale and distribution of essential commodities and shall issue the licences to the fair price shop owner under the said order laying down the duties and responsibilities of the fair price shop owners. Accordingly, the State Government made a fresh order under SecUon 3 of the Act by a notificstlon dated 23 of December, 2004 called the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) order, 2004 (forshort the Oider2004°j. Clause 9 (1) ofthe Order 2004 makes provisions regarding allocation of fair price shops in the State of Chhattisgarh and is extracted hereunder: "9. Allocation offair price shops (1) Farr Price Shop run by Large Aadim jati Multipurpose Cooperative Societies (LAMPS), Primary credit cooperative societies, forest protection committees, self help groups, Gram Panchayats and other cooperative societies shall be continued but not run by the private persons. Within six months from oommencement of thls O'-der, Fair Price Shops run by the private persons shall be cancelled and allotted to the specified agencies mentionsd in sub rule (3) and (4) of rule 9.' In accordance with provisions of Clause 9(1) of the Order 2004, quoted above, the licences issued to the petitioners are proposed to be cancelled Page 4 of 63 •s^'-. ,E. and the fair price shops are proposed to be aiiotted to agencies specified in the said Order 2004. Aggrieved, the peiitioners have chaltenged the provisions of the Order 2004 on different grounds and/or the orders of the authorities proposing to cancel the licences cf the petitioners for running the fair price shops. (3) Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ali Asgar leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.445 of 2005 submitted that the petitioner is a private person and the agreement between the petitioner and the State Government relating to the fair price shop being run by the petitioner provided in Clause (15) that the agreement could be terminated only for breach of the conditions of the agreement by the petitioner and hence the allotment offair price shop to the petitioner and the licence of the petitioner for running the fair price shop cannot be cancelled by the State Government unless it is established that the petitioner has committed somebreach ofthe agreement. l-i®submitted that though there is no allegation that the petffioner has committed any breach of the agreement, the authorities are now proposing to cancel the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner as well as the licence for the fair price shop of the petitioner under the Order 2004. Mr. Prashant Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State of Chhattisgarh, on the other hand, submitted that the allotment as well as the licence of the petitioner for running the fair price shop will have to be cancelled in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9 (1)0fthe0rder2004. (4) We are of the considered opinion that the cancellation of the fair price Shop is not to be made under Cfeuse (15) of the agreement between the petitioner and the State Governrtisnt for running :he fair price shop but because of supervening change of Taw. The Order 2004 is a ^ Page 5 of 63 '^kf- M^.:y statutory order made under Section 3 of the Act and Clause 9 (1) of the Order 2004 inter alia provides that wtihin sb< months from the commencement of the Order, fair price shops run by the private persons shall be cancelled and allotted to the specified agencies mentioned in the order. Hence, the cancellation of the fair price shop of the petitioner who was a private person was to be done by virtue of the provisions in Clause 9 (1) of the Order 2004. tn other words, it is the change of law after the agreement was made between the petitioner and the State Government for running of the fair price shop by the petitioner on account of which the agreement has to be cancelled. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1870 provides that a contract do an act which, after the contract is made, become Impossible, or, by a reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. Hence, the contract between ss petitioner and the State Government in so far as it provides for running of the fair price shop by the petitioner who is a private person would become unlawful after expiry of six months period from the date of enforeement of the Order 2004 and would therefore, become void and will have to be cancelled. This is thus not a case of cancellation of a fair price shop for breach of agreement but a case of cancellation offair price shop of the petitioner due to change of law. (5) Mr. Jayaswal, leamed counsel for fhe petitioner, next submitted that the Order 2004 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of In'dia inasmuch as it provides that private persons would not be allowed to run any fair price shop and orsly the agencies such as co- operath/e societies as specified in the Order 2004 would be allowed to run the fair price shops. He cited the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Ramanlal Nagardas and Others Vs. M.S. PaSnitkar & another, AIR 1961 Gujarat 38, in which it has been held that the decision of the State to entrust ll . d ,-f £ Page 6 of 63 wholesale distribution to the Co-operative Soc'eties to the exc'usion of other licence holders amounted to discrimination and could not be justified on any reasonable principles of classification and was. thus violab've of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that the only reason given in the retum filed by the State of Chhattisgarh for excluding private persons from mnning fair price shops and for entrusting fair price shops to Co- operative Societies and other agencies specified in the Order 2004 is that some complaints of malpractices and irregularities by fair price shops run by private persons have been registered in the Sfate of Chhattisgarh during the years 2001 - 2002, 2002-2003 and 2003- 2004. He submitted that the statements Annexure-R/1 annexed to the retum would show that cases have also been registered against Co-operative Societies and other agencies running fair price shops in the State of Chhattisgarh during the years 2001- 2002, 2002 - 2003 and 2003-2004. He argued that there was, therefore, no justification for excluding private persons from running fair price shops and at the same time allowing Co-operative Societies dnd other agencies specified in the Order 2004 to run fair price shops. He cited the judgment of the Gujrat High Court in Ramanlal Nagardas and C ,ers Vs. M.S. Palnitkar & another (supra) in which the Gujrat High Court has held that classification of indivkluals and Co-operative Societies and cancelling the licences of the individuals only has been held to be having no i-ational nexus with the obj'ect soughtto be achieved bythe Act. (6) Mr. Manindra Shrh/astava, Sr. Aciwcate assisted by Mr. Amrito Das, leaned counsel appearing for the petitionsr in Writ Petition No.578 of 2005, further submitted that the statistics given by the State Government in Annexure-R/1 annexed to the return regarding number of cases of malpractices and irregularities registered agai"?t fair price shops for the yeare 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-200^ are misleading, as these Page 7 of 63 •'i^;-* statistics do not disclose the number of private persons who have been running fair price shops during these three.years and the number of Co- operative Societies which have been running fair price shops during these three yeare. He argued that in the State of Chhattisgarh the number of fair price shops run by the private persons is mueh larger than the number of fair price shops run by the Co-operative Societies and, therefore, the number of complaints in the case of private persons running fair price shops are bound to be numerically more than the number of complaints against Co-operative Societies running the fair price shop s. He furtner argued that the State has not indicated in the retum whether the comp'aints against private persons ware examined and if so the resutt of the examination. He vehemently argued that the Court should not therefore reiy on the statistics given by the respondent/State in the statements annexed to '•he return as Annexure-R/1 . (7) Mr. Rajesh Pandey learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1034 of 2005 reiterated the aforesaid contenhon that the exclusion of private persons from running fair p<ice shops by the Order 2004 was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that one of the objects indicated in the preamble of the Constitution is social justice for the people of ''ndia and the classification adopted by the Order 2004 classifying private persons separately from Co- operative Societies and other agencies specifief in the Order 2004 is not consistent wtth this obj'ect of social justice mentic'ned in the preamble of the Constitution and is therefore irrational and the Order 2004 has to be held as violative of the right to equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of this submission he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Atam Prakash Vs. State of Haryana and others, A1R 1986 SC 8S9, in which 'rt has been hetd that a classification adopted by Uie legislature in the statute which is not in tune with the socialist ^ 33f Page 8 of 63 V- goal set out in the Preamble and the Directive Principles enumerated in Part- IV of the Constitution and the Constitution is per se illegal and cannot be permitted. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in LIC of India and another Vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre and others, AIR 1995 SC 1811. He vehemently argued that private persons in the State of Chhattisgarh have been excludfd from running fair price shops by the Order 2004 and thereby deprived of thsir only means of livelihood and such exclusion of private persons for running fair price shops was inconsistent with the goal of social justice in the Constitution and the Order 2004 was thus discriminstory towards individua! private persons and was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (8) Mr. Rajiv Shrivastava learneci counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1558 of 2005 also rsiterated the submission that the provision made in the Order 2004 excluding private persons from running fair price shops is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Consb'tution. He submitted that the classificanon is not only unreasonable but also unfair and has no nexus with the object of Section 3 (1) of the Act namely distribution of essential commodities at fair prices in an equitable manner. (9) Mr. Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rahul Jha leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1518 of 2005 submitted that a scheme for public distribution of essential commodities through fair price shops may give preference tc the Co-operative Societies but it should also provide that where Co-operative Societies are not available in any area, private persons can be allowed to ?'/ii fair price shops or where consumer Co-operative Society, available in a particular area, refuses to run the fair price shop, private persons in the area >*iay be ailowed to run a fair s® ^f • "!') PE>ge9of63'f'-1 price shop. He submitted that in M.P. Ration Vikreta Sangh, Jabalpur and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1981 MP 203, clause 2 of the Scheme framed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the year 1981 which provided that preference would be given to Co-operative