Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) THESE bunch of Writ Petitions, out of which the present writ petition i.e. civil misc. Writ petition No. 33921 of 2003 (Ram Dhyan Singh Versus the State of U.P. and others) is the leading case, have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, who can broadly be divided in the following categories: (i) Such petitioners, who entered into an agreement with the concern Authority as per relevant Government Orders, whereby they were appointed to deal with the food grains meant for distribution under Public Distribution System as an agent on behalf of the State and their dealership (right to deal exclusively in food grains meant for Public Distribution System), have been terminated, such persons who have approached to the Appellate Authority in terms of the relevant Government Orders against the aforesaid termination and the Appellate Authority has dismissed their appeals. (ii) Such petitioners, who were granted dealership by virtue of an agreement to exclusively deal with the food grains meant for Public Distribution System in the rural area and on being complaints filed against such dealers, the Authority acting upon the complaints have terminated their agreement of dealership; these dealers approached the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority; (a) has allowed their appeals without hearing the complaints and restored their respective dealership; or (b) has dismissed their appeals; these complainants have preferred writ petitions on the ground that they were not heard by the Appellate Authority before restoring the dealership of the concern dealers; and dears who have approached the Appellate Authority against the cancellation of their dealership and their appeal has been dismissed by the Authority.
(2.) THE State Government has issued Government Order dated 3rd July' 1990 which provides the methodology of appointing dealers and includes the provision of appeal against suspension/cancellation/refusal to renew the dealership to the Commissioner of the division etc. The another Government Order dated 10th August, 1999 deals with the subject. The next Government Order dated 13th January, 2000, which deals with the subject and the latest Government Order dated 22nd October, 2003, wherein relying upon the Division Bench decision of this Court, a Government Order was issued on 30th July, 2003 wherein it was stated that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition N. 749 of 2003 (Zila Panchayat, Ghaziabad) Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 2nd May, 2003, the State Government ahs issued a direction that the Gram Panchayat has been conferred with the powers of distribution etc. of the food grains meant for Public Distribution etc. of the food grains meant for Public Distribution system. The Division bench decision of this Court is subject matter of Special Leave Petition No. 17369 of 2003 before the apex Court and the apex Court vide its order dated 26th September, 2003 stayed the operation of the Judgment and order of this Court, referred to above, and consequently the Government Order was issued reviving the Government Orders dated 3rd July, 1990 and 13th January, 2000. At the outset, Shri Suresh Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. defending the interest of the State relying upon the aforesaid Government Orders raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these writ petitions before this Court, in as much as it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Das Sahu and another Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 1991 (17) A.L.R., page 406 (1991 ALJ, page 498) (Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 20086 of 1990, 24834 of 1990 and 32131 of 1990), decided on April 15, 1991) dealing with the similar controversy arising out of U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution Order) 1989 (herein-in-after referred to as "Distribution Order of 1989"), the Division bench of this Court has said that the fair price shops dealers have no legal right to obtain supply of schedule commodities, neither the Government is obliged to supply these commodities to agents Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 deal with the subject matter, which have been referred to and relied upon by learned Standing Counsel, are quoted as hereunder: "16. We have already noted the relevant provisions of the distribution Control Order of 1990. The Control Order of 1990 does not contain any provision for cancellation or suspension of agreement and further the order does not provide the manner in which the appointment of agent is to be made from all these provision it is manifest that the appointments of the petitions as agents to run fair price shops are contractual and their right to run the fair price shop emanates from the agreements. The Supreme Court as well as this Court on various occasions considered the aspect of the matter and held that the relationship of an agent with the State Government is contractual in the case of S.Chandra Sekharan and Others Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in A.I.R. 1974, S.C. Page, 1543, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the validity of the termination of agreement in respect of sale of levy sugar do not have any fundamental right or legal right to deal with that commodity and as such they are bound by the terms of the contract and their termination being in pursuance of the agreement cannot be assailed by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Similar view was expressed by a Full Bench of this Court in the cases of Shitla Prasad Vs. Mohd. Saidullah and others, report in A.I.R. 1975, Allahabad, Page 344 and M/s. Raj Kumar Sheo Kumar and Another Vs. A.D.M. (Civil Supplies and another, reported in 1981 (1) A.L.J., page 261 and Ram Awadh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1990-II, Essential Commodities Cases, Page 490. IN all these cases it was held that neither Article 14 of the Constitution nor principles of natural Justice is attracted when agreement to sell Government's food grain through fair price shop is terminated. 17. In the present case the petitioners have no fundamental right or legal right to deal with the scheduled commodities distribution through the Government run fair price shops. It is open to the petitioners to carry on business of foodgrain other than the foodgrains other than the foodgrains supplied through these fair price shops. Infact their right to run fair price shops emanates from the agreement. The agreement permits the Collector to terminate or suspend the agreement permits the Collector to terminate or suspend the agreement and this termination of suspension order will not give a cause of action to the petitioners to challenge the said order of termination or suspension of agreement by means of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 18. Before we part with these cases we propose to deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of each of the petitioners in connected with prayer for supply of quota of scheduled commodities by the respondents in their favour. The argument is that the petitioners having been appointed as authorized retail distributors for running the Government fair price shops or issued a license for retail sale of kerosene oil, it is not open to the respondents to abruptly stop supply of scheduled commodities including kerosene oil to them arbitrary and without notice or intimation to them. 19. On the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners the question which arises for consideration is as to whether these petitioners have a right to receive the quota of scheduled commodities including kerosene oil and in the event of non-supply of scheduled commodities in their favour can this Court compel the respondents to release the quota of the said scheduled commotions in favour of the petitioners for being distributors through fair price shops. 20. We have gone through the Control Order of 1990 and the Government Order dated 3.7.90 issued in pursuance thereof and we find that none of the petitioners thereof and we find that none of the petitioners has any legal right to obtain supply of scheduled commodities including kerosene oil for distribution through the fair price shops and furthers there is no obligation on the part of the Government to supply these commodities in favour of the agents who have been appointed to run the fair price shops. However, there are several clauses pertaining to method and manner of supply of scheduled commodities to the agents and the Government. The relevant clauses are clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the agreement Clause 3 of the agreement stipulates that an agent shall receive of lift quota of scheduled commodities in accordance with the directions issued by the authorities empowered in this behalf. Thus the supply of quota of scheduled commodities to the agents is subject to the orders issued by the authorities concerned and the agents cannot as a matter of right, claims release of scheduled commodities in their favour. We are, therefore, of opinion the petitioners have neither any fundamental right nor legal right as to compel the Government to supply the scheduled commodities including kerosene oil in their favour. Moreover in the earlier part of the judgment we have already held that the relationship of agents who have been appointed for distribution of the scheduled commodities through the fair price shops with that of the State Government is contractual and infact their appointments as agents and determination of the agreement are under the agreements which is non-statutory in character, and, therefore, the supply of release of quota of scheduled commodities in favour of the agents has to be governed by the incidence of the contract or agreement and this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot compel the Government to supply the quota of scheduled commodities in favour of the petitioners."
(3.) FOR the purposes of arriving its conclusion, the Division Bench has relied upon as observed in para 22 of Gopal Das Sahu's Case, which runs as under: "22. Moreover, controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court in the case of S. Chandra Sekharan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (Supra) and Shital Prasad Vs. Mohd. Saibullah (Supra), respectively. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.Chandra Shekharan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu is a constitution bench decision of five Hon'ble Judges whereas the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Auto Stores (supra) is a decision by two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court. In our opinion the decision in the case of S. Chandra Shekharan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (supra), is binding on the High Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner cannot derive any assistance from the case of Mahabir Auto Stores (Supra) as to compel the respondents to supply scheduled commodities for distribution through Government run fair price shops." According to learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State , the controversy stands concluded by a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of U.P. State Gala Vikreta Parishad, Allahabad Versus State of U.P and others, reported in 1992 (2) E.F.R, Page 655, wherein the Full Bench considered the similar controversy and has held that the agreement between the fair price agents and District Magistrate / State for sale of the scheduled commodities through fair price shops and termination or suspension of such dealership in that event this Court will not interfere in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution in paragraph 15 of the judgment, referred to above, the Full Bench has considered the decision of Division Bench of Gopal Das Sahu (Supra) and held that it lay down correct law and has given its conclusion in paragraph 21, which is quoted below : "21. Even through the petitioners and other authorized agents cannot challenge the breach of their contract on the ground of violation of constitutional provisions before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution but they are not remediless. Government letter itself Provides for appeal against some of the orders, which may be passed by the authorities. That part, the authorized agents like the petitioners have remedy of civil suit before the appropriate Civil Court, which they can institute before filling of the appeal as Well as after the appeal is decided.;