Prescribing Maximum Age Of 65 Years For Fair Price Shop Dealers Not Unreasonable: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that prescribing the maximum age of 65 years for a fair price shop dealer for the implementation of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 cannot be termed as unreasonable.

The Court found that the impugned notification contained a provision allowing transfer of the licence to an eligible dependent, and therefore did not result in deprivation of livelihood.

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging the policy notification (SO 41) issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir under the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while stating that fixing the age of 65 years as the maximum age of a fair price shop dealer cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary, observed: “distribution of food grains requires physical strength as well. Under normal circumstances, when a person reaches 65 years of age, it becomes little difficult to perform activities that require much physical labour. A Government employee also retires at the age of 60 years”.

The Court observed that the maximum age bar was justified “particularly when the provision has been made in Clause 23 of SO 41 regarding transfer of license in favour of the dependent family member of fair price shop dealer who has attained the age of 65 years.”

The matter arose after the petitioners, who were working as fair price shop dealers under earlier government orders, challenged the policy issued under the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, contending that it reduced the number of ration tickets, imposed a renewal fee, and fixed the maximum age limit of 65 years.

They relied on doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, arguing that their licences were sanctioned before the introduction of the new policy and that the new rules could not be implemented retrospectively.

The respondents, however, submitted that the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, superseded the previous Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, and all earlier guidelines stood repealed. It was stated that the new policy was issued in accordance with the National Food Security Act, 2013 and in the public interest to ensure the availability of essential commodities.

The High Court, upon examining the records, observed that the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, was issued by the Central Government to ensure supply and distribution of essential commodities, and that the National Food Security Act, 2013, was enacted to guarantee food and nutritional security.

The Court held that the fair price shop system is a State intervention for the distribution of food grains, and the appointments of dealers are incidental to that object. While making these observations, the Court remarked that “the fair price shop system is also contributing to the generation of employment, though the same has never been the main object of the Targeted Public Distribution System, but incidental thereto”.

On the plea of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, the Court referred to Puja Ferro Alloys P. Ltd v. State of Goa and P.T.R. Exports (Madras) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, observing that “when the public interest competes against the individual rights of some citizens (petitioners in the present case) and when the complaint is made by them in respect of the violation of the doctrines of 'legitimate expectation' and 'promissory estoppel', then the interest of public at large steal a march on individual interest of the few citizens”.

On the maximum age limit, the Court held that distribution of food grains involves physical labour and held that prescribing the maximum age of 65 years for a fair price shop dealer cannot be termed as unreasonable. The Court noted that Clause 23 permits transfer of the licence to an eligible dependent and held that the provision does not deprive dealers of livelihood.

The Bench concluded that the policy is a complete code, laying down duties, liabilities, and selection criteria, and that the petitioners had failed to show a violation of any fundamental or vested right.

Dismissing all writ petitions, the Court held that the policy issued under the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, is valid. It upheld the provisions relating to rationalisation of ration cards, renewal fee, and maximum age of 65 years, and held that no interference was warranted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Case Title: Mohammad Ashraf Wani and Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment