V.K. Khanna, J. - (1.) THESE are connected writ petitions raising similar questions of law. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions and Sri N.L. Ganguly, Standing Counsel appearing for the State have stated that these writ petitions be heard together. These writ petitions are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. Brief facts for the purposes of adjudicating the questions raised in these writ petitions are that for the purposes of distribution and sale of food -grains and other Essential Commodities the State Government Officers had authorised the District Magistrate/District Supply Officers Town Rationing Officers to appoint agents called the Authorised Retail Distributors. It is not being disputed that the appointment is made by means of a written agreement executed by one or the other officers mentioned above as well as the authorised agents appointed by the aforesaid officer. The terms and conditions of the appointment of these authorised agents have not been provided by any statutory order and is solely governed by the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement. All the petitioners in the writ petitions before us are such authorised retail distributors who are running fair price shops in the State of Uttar Pradesh under written agreements which had been executed as stated above.
(2.) ACCORDING to the counter -affidavit which has been filed by Sri Tej Bahadur Khare in leading writ petition No. 2483 of 1989 it has been stated that the State Government to improve the system of Distribution of Essential Commodities at fair price shops passed Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989 in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965. The aforesaid order has been passed for giving one composite licence of food stuffs i.e. oil, sugar, foodgrains, etc. However, in this Order under Section 1(4) it has been provided that the order shall not apply to the clauses as enumerated therein and under Clause 1(4)(g) it has been provided that this order shall also not apply to any authorised retail distributor appointed under the U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1989. The State Government on the same day in excise of the powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act passed U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1989. This order was also passed for equitable distribution and availability of essential commodities at fair prices. In Clause 2(d) the 'Authored Retail Distributor, has been defined to be a person appointed by the District Magistrate, City Magistrate or Sub -Divisional Magistrate for selling scheduled commodities. Under Clause 2(d) 'scheduled commodity' has been defined under Schedule I to mean wheat, rice, pulses, sugar edible oils kerosene oil, soft coke and controlled cloth. From a perusal of the aforesaid order it is clear that fair price shops for the equitable distribution of the essential commodities shall be given only to authorised persons in respect of scheduled commodities which are given in Schedule I and are not required to have licences for selling scheduled commodities which are covered under the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989 in view of the provisions of Clause 1(4)(g) of the aforesaid order. In the counter -affidavit it has also been alleged that the Government Order, dated 23 -9 -1989 has only been passed to provide guidelines to the Collectors for selecting the authorised retail distributors. However, it is stated that the Government Order does not take away the power of the District Magistrate to exercise the powers under Section 2(b) of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1989.
(3.) THE District Magistrate of various districts of the State in exercise of this power under these two new Control Orders have authorised several persons in the rural areas for equitable distribution of the essential commodities and have stopped supply of monthly quota to the petitioners in all these writ petitions who had been appointed authorised dealers in pursuance of the agreement which had been executed between them and the authorities as mentioned above. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in stopping monthly quota of the essential commodities have filed the present writ petitions challenging the action of the respondents being illegal and arbitrary.;