#Fair Price Shop

Karnataka High Court holds that inordinate delay in processing a representation for fair price shop allotment on compassionate grounds amounts to a violation of natural justice. The court directed authorities to dispose of the petitioner's request within a strict timeline, reinforcing the duty to act promptly under statutory provisions.

The Bombay High Court quashed the cancellation of a Scheduled Caste woman's fair price shop licence after authorities ignored her written explanation without meaningful scrutiny. This ruling reinforces that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in welfare-based licensing, especially when vulnerable beneficiaries are deprived of livelihood rights without reasoned evaluation.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that marital status cannot disqualify a daughter from inheriting a Fair Price Shop on compassionate grounds under the U.P. Order, 2016. This reinforces the Supreme Court’s directive that welfare schemes must not discriminate against women based on marriage, ensuring equitable access to livelihood support for all dependent family members regardless of marital status.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that revisional authorities under the Public Distribution System framework lack inherent power to impose monetary penalties or recovery orders, even when misconduct is proven. This clarifies a critical boundary in administrative law: quasi-judicial review does not equate to legislative authority to levy financial sanctions, protecting fair price shop operators from arbitrary fiscal punishment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that excluding married daughters from the definition of 'family' for compassionate allotment of fair price shops violates constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The judgment mandates that dependency and residence, not marital status, must determine eligibility - empowering millions of women who sustain households after a dealer's death, regardless of marriage.

The Chhattisgarh High Court quashed the suspension of a Fair Price Shop license for violating the mandatory 3-month timeline to conclude proceedings and denying the licensee a hearing, reinforcing that procedural fairness under administrative law cannot be bypassed even in public distribution cases. This ruling protects thousands of women-led self-help groups operating FPS outlets from arbitrary state action.

Calcutta High Court rules that a 45-year age cap for Fair Price Shop dealerships under the West Bengal Targeted Public Distribution System Order is arbitrary and violates constitutional guarantees of equality and freedom of trade. The judgment mandates the state to consider all eligible applicants regardless of age, reinforcing that classification must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a subsequent allottee of a Fair Price Shop under reservation policy lacks the legal standing (locus standi) to challenge the revival of the original allottee’s licence, even if the subsequent allottee operated the shop in good faith for years. The decision reinforces that only parties directly aggrieved by an administrative action can seek judicial review, protecting the stability of public distribution schemes.

Bombay High Court rules that only societies registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act qualify for fair price shop allotments, invalidating municipal registration as insufficient. The judgment directs fresh advertisement, impacting self-help groups and public procurement policies.

Allahabad HC rules that subsequent allottees of fair price shops under the Essential Commodities Control Order are necessary parties in appeals against cancellation orders. Failure to implead them vitiates appellate orders, even if they did not file an application, reinforcing natural justice in administrative proceedings.