Srinagar- The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Thursday upheld Jammu and Kashmir Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2023 issued vide SO 41, observing that it was aimed at ensuring the proper supply of essential commodities to the general public.

Dismissing a batch of petitions filed by fair price shop dealers, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that if achieving the primary objective incidentally results in the generation of employment opportunities, the petitioners cannot invoke employment concerns to defeat the main purpose of S.O. 41.

“We agree with the respondents (government) that the SO 41 is, in fact, an action on the part of the respondents in fulfilling the object/aim of the Article 47 of the Constitution of India,” the court said, observing that Article 47 was the guiding lamp showing a way to the Government to tread upon, to achieve the goals of raising the level of nutritional security and improving public health.

“The SO 41 has been issued by the respondents in public interest and when the public interest competes against the individual rights of some citizens (petitioners in the present case) and when the complaint is made by them in respect of the violation of the doctrines of 'legitimate expectation' and 'promissory estoppel', then the interest of public at large steal a march on individual interest of the few citizens,” the court said, underlining that the petitioners cannot raise the plea of doctrines of“legitimate expectation” and“promissory estoppel” to assail SO 41.“Therefore, the challenge thrown to SO 41 on the above-mentioned grounds is misconceived.”

Relying on Order No. 127-FCS&CA of 2016, dated 4 August 4 2016, to assail S.O. 41, the petitioners had argued that the new order had the effect of reducing ration tickets to 1,500 persons or 200 families in rural areas, and not more than 2,000 persons or fewer than 300 families in urban areas. Under the 2016 order, they pointed out, the minimum number of ration tickets was fixed at 250, with an upper limit of 499.

They further contended that S.O. 41 could not be applied retrospectively, as it deprived them of their vested rights to a guaranteed number of ration tickets under previous government orders. The earlier orders, they argued, contained no provisions for reducing ration tickets or limiting the age of fair price shop dealers.

MENAFN30102025000215011059ID1110274121