Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Courts Have No Jurisdiction To Invade/Replace Policy Decisions: Tripura HC [Read Order]

Akshita Saxena
25 Nov 2019 7:20 AM GMT
Courts Have No Jurisdiction To Invade/Replace Policy Decisions: Tripura HC [Read Order]
x

The Tripura High Court on Wednesday reiterated that courts do not have the jurisdiction to interfere in policy decisions of the government. While adjudicating upon a petition filed by one Sachindra Chandra Das, a dealer of Fair Price Shop, the single judge bench of Justice Arindam Lodh said, "The decision of the government was not to allow any person to run the Fair Price Shop...

The Tripura High Court on Wednesday reiterated that courts do not have the jurisdiction to interfere in policy decisions of the government.

While adjudicating upon a petition filed by one Sachindra Chandra Das, a dealer of Fair Price Shop, the single judge bench of Justice Arindam Lodh said,

"The decision of the government was not to allow any person to run the Fair Price Shop other than the original licensee, is a policy decision of the government and the court has no jurisdiction to invade/replace the decision of the government."

In the backdrop, the Petitioner had executed a deed of Power of Attorney in favour of another person to run the Fair Price Shop on his behalf.

Stating that appointment of a proxy dealer was contrary to the memorandum dated 18.03.2011 issued by the Director, Food, Civil supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Tripura, the state authorities had served a show cause notice upon him, asking why legal action should not be taken against him together with suspension/cancellation of his dealership with forfeiture of security money.

Aggrieved by the notice, the Petitioner had pleaded that engagement of another person was essential for smooth functioning of the shop, given that he had attained the age of 86 years and suffered from Parkinson disease.

Notwithstanding these arguments, the court was of the opinion that it could not grant any relief to the Petitioner since it could not delve into policy matters.

"On a bare reading of this memorandum, it is clearly surfaced that the Government of Tripura has taken conscious decision not to allow any person other than the original licensee i.e. in favour of whom the license was/has been issued by the Licensing Authority…

xxx

It is apparent from the records that the petitioner has executed the Power of Attorney as well as allowed other person to run the business in contravention of the directives of the government," it was held.

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate K. Nath and the Respondent by AGA D. Sharma.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order


Next Story