High Court Karnataka High Court

Rita Mahajan vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Rita Mahajan vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN. CI-HEF J?g'STI4(§1§Cj"'   A =

THE HON'BLE MR..msTzcE VJG.     

WRIT PETITION No.234=?V5;42oo9"iS:mIe£   

BETWEEN:

1 SMTRITA MAHAJAN ..  «
W/O SHRI SATISH. -_ v_ 'V =
R/AT HOUSE No-.97-S, IST BLOC-K   V'
HRBR LAYoU,T.._"NASART_  "" "
BANGALoRI?;'4:3_;    "

_  PETITIONER
A = (By Sn  ADVOCATE}
AND : 4. . . . ..

1f" *-UN10.N' 0;? INDIA  """ "

 MINISTRY .03 CONSUMER AFFAIRS

 FOOD'  A PU'B_LIC DISTRIBUTION,
DEPT'&RT1*viEji§>IT'Q'F' FOOD AND PUBLIC
. D1S'r_RIBLJTI015:*,E "KRISHI BHAVAN",
_ pARL1AM--ENT' STREET

  'NEW DELHI 1.10 001 BY ITS

  OF KARNATAKA

_ =_I3'Y DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES AND

   CONSUMER AFFAIRS,

.. * No.8, SAHAKAR1 BHAVAN

 



CUNNINQHAM ROAD, BANGALORE 2
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

 RESPONDENT.Se'.._i*._V

{By Sri B. VEERAPPA A.G.A.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTlCI,E’SV2′?,6 AND” –T C ”

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DlRE;CT’._IfHE».,
RESPONEENTS To EITHER BAN “_{‘ERMPC)FiARl_LY., I
TRADING OF’ ALL ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES *-OR.’ UNLIEK,
ANNEX–A AND ANNEX«–B RELEASE ENPORCEABLE WEEKLY LIST
OF CEILING RATES OF WHOLE~SA.LE..AND” RETAIL. RATES’ OF’ *

ALL ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ANI’3’e».._V/EGETABLES-I SO: AS To
MOTIVATE PEOPLE TO BUY EITHERR_IN_jw1HvOLEwSALEAORCEQUIP
THE PEOPLE TO QUESTION ‘~ANY;”AEN-ORMAL RATES WHICH

RETAILERS MAY CHARGE; AND ;

THIS WRIT PETHTION yCOM’II~IGE«..’:’LIP PRELIMINARY

HEARING ON THIS’ ‘~:.?)_AY, COU’R1’-_…DELlVERED THE
EOLLOwING:- ‘- 5: ~ _ .

A” {l)el1fve’1″e_cl l:?4.’D_:.’:DiiIakaran, C.J .]
The pet.i_tiorIeI’~. Aesproulsinvg the public Cause Of rise in

pf§CeS”OfV’Vall COIII:moditieS has preferred the above

Seeking the following reliefs:

_ [i] “‘««..direCt-Tithe respondents to either ban
V te1TIfJOrarily open trading of all essential
.V:»l””¢Ornn’IOdities Or unlike and release

‘enforceable weekly list of Ceiling rates of

wholesale and retail rates Of all essential

A.~~4<-"Er"-

K A? ‘ .,/

32’ M”

5

2.1. Mr.X.M.Joseph, learned counsel arguing on behalf

of the petitioner submits that food is a birth right of

person and it should be made available to everyone: ”

human right and therefore everyone

the standard of living adequate for heialtheland:’v.re1i~

himself and his family members; V

has inalienable right to be free’from”l1n:n§er;._’rightto adequate
food is economic, social therefore,
every Stateeis obligecjiitfj. has access to
the minimum placing reliance on
Articles 14 India, the petitioner

seeks the abov eureliefsa” ”

fi2.2._~ in’rth.er_y.contention that it is only for this

purpose the Commodities Act has been enacted by

Central VGAov_ernment to provide for control of the

_:p.rodii_ction, .siipply and distribution of, trade and commerce,

‘ .V 5 in essentiai commodities.

:3 ‘_ Viv’ /w”

(wide Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co.

Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 724].

5.1. In this petition, what the petitioner .

abuses by the businessmen. Therefore; ,_in our””co;nsid.VeredV_V

opinion, is a matter for consideration of leXeclu–t_iVes to

stock of the same because it is -fo’1=..V_thel.”1egislature;”to~ take ” ‘

affirmative responsibility in.’ the fi4itv..,jSW§fOI’ the
executives to implement the “it: The Courts
are oniy conferred the such laws and

decide the disputes it, but neither to

interfere such ‘legislation or execution of
such legislation”tnor.v to attempt to reconstruct the
proirisiongggsi sought “for___i_:1__the prayer [2] of the writ petition.

It v.\’2i–.§()’13Vl,(V:’i;._i11__v’Oi;iI;:””E)_OnSide1’€d opinion, only add to the

:’u”t».copmple§iity”lof economic regulations and increase the

_f_nricertaint}’r the public.

5.2. It is settled law that the Courts should avoid such

liability to cause errors in the economic regulative measiir_e~s,

bewildering the conflict of the experts and the ~

impose self–restraints and limitations sothat

still prevail in such situation. (vieie

Elphinstone Spinning and Weavfi1g(.::t§~;._LtdA.h;’ AIR. ” V

6. Hence, in the factsand A..ciro.i_1Instance’s”of the case,
finding no reason to grantlléltlie/for in the writ
petition, the Writ However, the
petitioner is executives, if she
has any grievaI1–ce ‘ ‘l
gfifieijflfifise

Sd/~
IUEXEE

2 ,/”‘
d

_ H Jr’-.

4: ._’_We_b” ostzu S / N o