Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal has dismissed petitions challenging the State’s proposal to open new fair price shops under the National Food Security Act, 2013. The Court held that the decision to establish additional shops is a policy matter within the prerogative of the Government and that existing dealers, even those operating for two decades, cannot claim monopoly over a locality. It further recorded that variations in the number of ration card holders between shops do not render the policy discriminatory, since the primary objective is equitable distribution of essential commodities to vulnerable citizens.

The matter arose out of multiple writ petitions filed by license holders of fair price shops from different districts of Rajasthan, including Nagaur, Sri Ganganagar, Hanumangarh, and Balotra. The petitioners challenged the State Government’s advertisement dated 25.06.2025, which proposed the establishment of new fair price shops on the recommendations of local legislators and ministers.

Also Read: Supreme Court Declares NUJS Faculty’s Sexual Harassment Complaint Time-Barred Under POSH Act | Orders Vice-Chancellor To Record Judgment In Resume

In one of the petitions, it was argued that an existing fair price shop was allotted in 2000 at Ward No.27, Dada Mohalla, Ginani Talab, Nagaur City, which later became Ward No.34 after delimitation. The petitioner contended that the advertisement sought to establish another shop in the same ward, thereby overlapping the area of operation. Petitioners across connected matters raised similar grievances that new shops were being proposed in areas already covered by their operations.

The petitioners submitted that as per government guidelines dated 07.04.2010, 17.03.2016, 22.10.2019, and 26.12.2019, no new fair price shop could be established in an area where the number of ration card holders attached to an existing shop was 500 or fewer. They contended that they were catering to more than 500 ration card holders under the National Food Security Act, 2013, and the impugned advertisements violated these mandatory guidelines. The petitioners further alleged that the proposed decision was politically motivated, carried out at the behest of local MLAs and ministers, and discriminatory since in other areas, despite higher numbers of ration card holders, no new shops were proposed.

They also relied on the Report of the Justice Wadhwa Committee, which recommended rationalization of ration cards to ensure each fair price shop had a minimum of 500 to 1000 ration card holders, thereby making shops financially viable and discouraging malpractices. The petitioners argued that the impugned advertisements were contrary to these recommendations and violated their right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the establishment and allotment of fair price shops was a matter of State policy and that license holders had no vested or legal right to prevent the government from opening new shops. They contended that the impugned advertisements did not violate any fundamental right of the petitioners and that the guidelines relied upon by them were not mandatory but only directory in nature. The respondents placed reliance on a circular dated 10.05.2025, which allowed relaxation of the 500 ration card condition in view of geographical conditions and public interest.

The respondents also cited several precedents, including Neeraj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2017), Kailash Chandra v. State (2015), Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2021), and the Division Bench decision in Hari Om Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2015), to argue that existing license holders cannot claim monopoly and that such guidelines are not binding on the State.

The Court observed: “The establishment/allotment of fair price shops is a policy matter therefore, the State Government has sole authority to decide as to the number of fair price shops in an area.” It further stated: “The guidelines or executive/administrative instructions issued from time to time, are neither mandatory in nature nor confer any right upon the existing fair price shops holders.”

Addressing the petitioners’ reliance on the Justice Wadhwa Committee Report, the Court stated: “The report of the Justice Wadhwa Committee is merely suggestive in nature and may be a guiding factor for taking decision to open new fair price shops in particular area.” The Court clarified that such recommendations cannot override government policy.

Rejecting the petitioners’ claim of monopoly, the Court observed: “Most of the petitioners in the present bunch of writ petitions, are running fair price shops for about 20 years, cannot claim monopoly in the area in question. Due to rise in population and other factors, if the State Government thought it fit to open new fair price shops, that too looking to the welfare of the public of the area in question, cannot be questioned as the same is nothing but a policy decision of the State Government.”

On the allegation of political motivation, the Court noted: “There is no material placed on record in the present writ petitions, which could indicate that the respondents are proposing new fair price shops at the instance of local M.L.A. or Minister. The local M.L.A./Minister, being public representative, can always recommend for opening of fair price shops, based on the demand raised by the public.”

The Court also addressed the argument regarding the need for surveys, stating: “Even if such survey is not conducted, yet the State Government can decide new fair price shops based on public demand. Even if the ratio of maintaining minimum 500 ration cards for each fair price shops is not followed, the same would not give rise to any cause for the petitioners as such requirement itself is directory and the report of Justice Wadhwa Committee is merely suggestive.”

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Ban on Meat Shops Near Public Temples | Licences Cancelled for Establishments Within 50 Meters Under Municipal Act

The Court concluded its observations by affirming: “The guidelines were issued by State Government from time to time and latest being Circular dated 10.05.2025 is to provide reasonable distribution of Ration Card holders amongst fair price shop dealers. However, it is the prerogative of the State Government to decide the opening of new fair price shops in any particular area.”

“This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the policy decision of the State Government. The writ petitions are, therefore, liable to be and are hereby dismissed.” The Court further directed: “All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nimba Ram Choudhary, Mr. Mohan Ram Choudhary, Mr. R.C. Joshi, Mr. Hans Raj, Mr. Manjeet, Mr. Vikram Singh Jaitawat, Mr. Manoj Kumar

For the Respondents: Mr. Sameer Shrimali, Mr. Nitesh Mathur

Case Title: Mohammad Salim & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:38216

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13163/2025 and connected matters

Bench: Justice Sunil Beniwal