Hon'ble Dr. Vijay Laxmi,J.
Heard Sri Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. Notices have been accepted on behalf of the respondent No.5 by Sri Ankit Pandey. This writ petition questions the correctness of the Government order dated 01.04.2006 and the order issued by the respondent State on 02.06.2016 whereby the standard rate of Rs.65/- per quintal for inter-State transportation and handling of foodgrains have been fixed by the State Government. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the same is based on a totally misinterpretation of Rule 7 of the Food Security (Assistance to the State Government) Rules, 2015. A copy of the said Rules has been placed on record. The said rule 7 is extracted hereinunder:- "7. Norms and pattern of Central assistance.-- (1) The norms of Central assistance ( in Rs. Per quintal) to the State Government and Union territory and share of the Central Government (in percentage) shall be limited as under: Category of State and Union Territories Norms of expenditure (Rate in Rs, per quintal) Central share (in per cent) Intra-State movement and handling Fair Price Shop dealers margin Basic Additional margin for sale through point of sale device General 65 70 17 50 Special 100 143 17 75 Explanation--For the purpose of this rule-
(1) "General Category States and Union territories" means the following:
(2) "Special Category States and Union Territories" means the following:
(i) Arunachal pradesh;
(ii) Assam;
(iii) Himanchal Pradesh;
(iv) Jammu and Kashmir;
(v) Manipur;
(vi) Meghalaya;
(vii) Mizoram;
(viii) Nagaland;
(ix) Sikkim;
(x) Tripura;
(xi) Uttarakhand;
(xii) Andman and Nicobar Islands; and
(xiii) Lakshadweep.
(2) The additional margin provided in sub-rule (1) is towards the cost of purchase, operation and maintenance of the point of sale device, its running expenses and incentive for its use. (3) The additional margin shall be payable for the fair price shop which has installed a point of sale device and shall be limited to the transactions made through it. (4) The additional margin shall be released on the basis of a certificate from the State Government, supported by the documents, indicating the following, namely:-
(a) number of fair price shops at which the point of sale devices have been installed and are functional; and
(b) the details of all transactions using the point of sale devices.
(5) The State Government shall furnish the details of all transactions made through the point of sale devices in public domain. (6) The State Government shall have the flexibility in choosing any of the following models for the installation of point of sale device, namely:-
(a) the State Government may purchase, install and maintain the point of sale device,
(b) the State Government may select a system integrator to purchase, install and maintain the point of sale device;
(c) the fair price shop dealer may purchase, install and maintain the point of sale device.
(7) The State Government shall determine the basis for apportioning the additional margin for sale through point of sale device among different stakeholders, depending upon the model chosen. (8) The State Government shall have the flexibility to allow differential margins within the State taking into consideration the location of shops and number of ration cards attached to the shops. Provided that the Central assistance shall be limited to the rates specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 7 or the actual average rates for the State as a whole, at which the expenditure was actually incurred by the State Government, whichever is lower. (9) For the expenditure on intra-State movement and handling of foodgrains, Central assistance shall be limited to the rates specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 7 or the actual average rates for the State as a whole at which expenditure was incurred by the State Government, whichever is lower." Learned counsel submits that the said Rule 7 only indicates the norms provided by the Central Government for central assistance which is Rs.65/- per quintal to the maximum and 50% thereof to be borne by the Central Government. Learned counsel submits that this was a restraint on the burden of share to be borne by the Central Government and was not a norm to fix the maximum rate to be offered by the State Government. The contention is that totally misinterpreting the said norms, the impugned Government order has been issued treating the same to be a direction to fix the maximum limit of rate of Rs.65/- per quintal to be compulsorily observed by the State Government. Learned counsel submits that the consequential order dated 02.06.2016 also suffers from the same infirmity and as such, both deserve to be quashed as they are based on a misinterpretation and misreading of the aforesaid Rules. We have considered the aforesaid submissions raised and we find that the State Government while proceeding to interpret Rule 7 of 2015 Rules may not have correctly arrived at the conclusion of the maximum permissible rate of Rs.65/- and to that extent the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct but the petitioner cannot compel the State Government to trade or to fix the rate as had been done earlier. The State Government has now reduced and fixed the rate at Rs.65/-. It is open to the petitioner to enter into the trade on the said rates as prescribed in the Government orders. A writ therefore, cannot be issued to compel the State Government to proceed to fix the rates as earlier which cannot be a matter of adjudication for this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. However, if there is any dispute with regard to the agreement with the State Government vis-a-vis the rate, it will be open to the petitioner to approach any appropriate forum in accordance with law. Order Date :- 6.9.2016 Rajneesh) [Dr. Vijay Laxmi,J] [Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.]