Prescribing 65-Year Cap For Fair Price Dealers Not Unreasonable; J&K & Ladakh High Court Upholds Licence Renewal And Ration-Card Rationalisation Under PDS Control Framework
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of the Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that introducing a maximum age of 65 years for fair price shop dealers under the revised public distribution framework was not unreasonable, observing that the policy also allows transfer of the licence to an eligible dependent and therefore does not take away livelihood. Upholding the 2023 control order issued by the administration, the Court accepted the restructuring of ration-card allocation limits and the requirement of periodic licence renewal. The petitions brought by existing dealers challenging these provisions were dismissed, with the Court finding no infringement of any vested or fundamental right.
The petitions were filed by multiple fair price shop dealers who had been allotted shops under earlier government orders, including the 2016 guidelines issued by the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs of Jammu & Kashmir. They challenged the subsequent statutory order issued in January 2023, which replaced previous policies framed under the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015.
The petitioners asserted that the new framework reduced the number of ration cards and population attached to each shop, introduced a renewal fee every five years, and fixed an upper age limit of 65 years for continuing as a dealer. They contended that these changes adversely affected their income, removed earlier benefits regarding territory and ration-ticket allocation, and disrupted expectations formed under prior orders. They further argued that the revised limits on beneficiaries and mandatory renewal fees imposed financial hardship and that the new age cap restricted their continued operation despite no previous age restriction.
The respondents submitted that the 2015 Control Order superseded all prior guidelines, and the revised norms were introduced to address deficiencies, streamline distribution, and align with statutory requirements under the Essential Commodities Act, the National Food Security Act, and the 2015 Control Order. They stated that the adjustments were necessary for equitable distribution, public convenience, and improved functioning of the public distribution network. The respondents highlighted that the notification allowed transfer of a licence to an eligible dependent and that financial measures, including enhanced commissions and proposals for sale of additional commodities, were introduced to support shop viability.
The Court recorded that S.O. 41 was issued “to achieve the salutary object of providing the Essential Commodities i.e. food grains to such section of the society, who because of one reason or another have either no access to these commodities or have access to the same but with extreme difficulty.” It stated that the National Food Security Act, 2013 was promulgated “with the object of providing food and nutritional security and ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life of dignity.”
The Bench observed that “‘fair price shop’ as a source of employment to unemployed youth was only incidental object to the main object of Order of 2015.” It recorded that S.O. 41 was “issued by the respondents in public interest” and that “when the public interest competes against the individual rights of some citizens… then the interest of public at large steal a march on individual interest.”
Referring to the principle of promissory estoppel, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Puja Ferro Alloys, noting that “public interest is what turns the tide.” It further quoted P.T.R. Exports, stating that “the doctrine of legitimate expectation plays no role when the appropriate authority is empowered to take a decision by an executive policy or under law.”
On the petitioners' objection regarding reduction of ration cards, the Court quoted Clause 20(2): “No Fair Price Shop shall have more than 1500 souls… in Rural Areas and not more than 2000 souls… in Urban Areas.” The Court observed that this provision was included “taking into consideration the convenience of the public at large” and that judgments relied on by the petitioners “do not lay down the law that the fair price dealers have a fundamental right to have a particular number of ration tickets.”
The Court also recorded that the petitioners’ contentions regarding legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel were “misconceived.” With regard to ration tickets, it stated that “this contention of the petitioners is also baseless, as such, the same is rejected.” On the challenge to the renewal fee, the Court held that “there is no substance in this contention as well.” The Court further stated that the argument related to age limit “cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary.” It ultimately concluded that the petitioners “have not been able to demonstrate any of their fundamental/vested rights having been violated.”
Regarding renewal fee, the Court stated that “renewal fee in the instant case comes to ₹200 per year that cannot be termed as exorbitant or excessive.” It noted that the license was “in the form of permission to sale the scheduled items… and the Government can charge fee for issuance of such license and renewal thereof.”
On the prescribed age limit, the Court observed that “when a person reaches this stage of life, he usually is reluctant to perform physically laborious activities,” adding that transfer of license to a dependent family member was permissible. The Court found S.O. 41 to be “a complete Code in itself” and recorded that the petitioners “have not been able to demonstrate any of their fundamental/vested rights having been violated.”
The Court held that “we do not find merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.” It directed that “Resultantly, the proceedings in the accompanied contempt petitions, arising out of aforesaid writ petitions are also closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Adv.; Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani, Adv.; Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq, Adv.; Mr. Raja Rameez, Adv.; Mr. Mohd. Rafiq Bhat, Adv.; Mr. Altamash Rashid, Adv.; Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, Adv.; Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, Adv.; Mr. Aashiq Hussain, Adv.; Mr. T. A. Lone, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG
Case Title: Mohammad Ashraf Wani and Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:JKLHC-SGR:286-DB
Case Number: WP(C) 2105/2025 with connected matters
Bench: Chief Justice Arun Palli, Justice Rajnesh Oswal
