Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11787 of 2018 Petitioner :- Basudeo, Secretary, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Nath Pandey,Shiv Ram Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Akhtar Ali holding brief of Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
Petitioners, five in number, claim to be Secretary of different cooperative societies duly registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.
By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the third respondent, Registrar, U.P. Co-operative Societies, Lucknow, to ensure the sale/distribution of fertilizers only through the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies (PACS) and not through any other society or franchise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Krishi Utpadan Ayukta vide circular dated 6 May 2008 directed all the District Magistrates to ensure sale/distribution of fertilizers through Co-operative societies/PACS on priority basis. In compliance thereto, the Registrar, U.P. Co-operative Societies, directed all the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. and the District Magistrates to ensure sale of fertilizers to farmers through PACS and where PACS is not functioning then through franchises appointed in this regard.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents submits that the writ petition is misconceived for the reason that there is no such direction in the circulars as is being suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner that fertilizers have to be sold to the farmers only through PACS and not by any other agency. Further, he submits that the fifth respondent is a private person and not a cooperative society selling fertilizers manufactured and distributed by IFFCO, a public sector unit, his right to trade cannot be interfered with by administrative order.
We have perused the averments made in the writ petition and, in particular, the circulars referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are unable to persuade ourselves in accepting the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. On close reading of the circular we nowhere find that it prohibits any other agency/ or cooperative society from sale or distribution of the fertilizers to the farmers. If such a contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted it would violate the fundamental right of a citizen from carrying trade and profession guaranteed under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution.
In the circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the writ petition. Order accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 K.K. Maurya (Suneet Kumar, J) (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)