9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition for writ of mandamus to restrain denial of quota of levy sugar under Levy Sugar Supply Control Order, 1972; Discrimination in termination of agency agreements for distribution of levy sugar. Analysis: The judgment addressed two main issues. Firstly, the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents from denying their quota of levy sugar under the Levy Sugar Supply Control Order, 1972. The background highlighted the historical control of sugar production, pricing, and distribution by the Government of India under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Order in question requisitioned sugar from producers for supply at a price determined by the government. The petitioners, appointed as retailers for certain localities, had agreements with the State for distribution of levy sugar. However, the State terminated these agreements as part of a policy to eliminate retail sellers dealing in controlled sugar, replacing them with Model Shops and Co-operative Societies for fair distribution. The Court found the relationship between the petitioners and the State to be purely contractual, leading to the dismissal of the petition as the petitioners had no legal right to trade in levy sugar. Secondly, the issue of discrimination in the termination of agency agreements for distribution of levy sugar was raised. The petitioners alleged discrimination among the 160 dealers selling levy sugar, with 24, including them, being singled out. The State's preference for Co-operatives in distribution led to the replacement of private retailers with Model Shops, causing the petitioners to lose their distribution rights. The State justified its actions by emphasizing the need for fair and equitable distribution through Model Shops and Co-operative Societies. The Court agreed with the State's stance, stating that there was no discrimination as the agency agreements were terminated based on contractual provisions, and the State's actions were in line with its distribution policy. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
