MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

State Control Order Stands Strong: Calcutta High Court Upholds West Bengal’s PDS Regulations Amid National Changes

26 August 2024 11:55 AM

By: sayum


In a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court upheld the validity of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (PDS) Control Order, 2013, in light of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA, 2013) and the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) Control Order, 2015. Justice Bivas Pattanayak ruled that the State Control Order, 2013, remains effective and is not rendered redundant by the central regulations, emphasizing the continued applicability of the 2001 Central Control Order until the full implementation of the NFSA, 2013 in West Bengal.

Multiple petitioners, including Setara Begam and Surajit Saha, filed writ petitions challenging the declaration of vacancies for new distributors and dealers under the State Control Order, 2013. They argued that the State Control Order, 2013, had become redundant due to the supersession of the Central Control Order, 2001, by the TPDS Control Order, 2015, following the enactment of the NFSA, 2013. The petitioners contended that the state should frame new rules under the TPDS Control Order, 2015, for such declarations.

The court noted that the State Control Order, 2013, was issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, following the delegation of powers by the Central Government under the Central Control Order, 2001. Justice Pattanayak clarified that the State Control Order, 2013, derives its authority from the central legislation and thus cannot be considered an independent delegated legislation.

The TPDS Control Order, 2015, aimed to supersede the Central Control Order, 2001. However, the court highlighted the proviso in the TPDS Control Order, 2015, which maintains the applicability of the 2001 Order in states where the NFSA, 2013, has not been fully implemented. Given the state’s submission that certain provisions of the NFSA, 2013, remain unimplemented in West Bengal, the Central Control Order, 2001, continues to be in force, thereby sustaining the validity of the State Control Order, 2013.

Addressing the inconsistencies between the State Control Order, 2013, and the TPDS Control Order, 2015, the court stated that the existing state regulations are not rendered ineffective solely due to their differences. Justice Pattanayak emphasized that the state’s procedural provisions for public distribution should continue to operate unless explicitly superseded by new legislation.

“The NFSA, 2013 has not been fully implemented in the State of West Bengal… the Central Control Order, 2001 will continue to apply,” observed Justice Bivas Pattanayak. He further noted, “Even if there may be certain inconsistencies in State Control Orders, 2013 vis-à-vis TPDS Control Order, 2015, that does not ipso facto make the State Control Order, 2013 redundant.”

The Calcutta High Court’s decision reaffirms the validity of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, amidst evolving national regulations. By upholding the state order’s applicability, the court ensures the continued functioning of the public distribution system under the established legal framework until the NFSA, 2013, is fully implemented in the state. This judgment provides clarity on the interplay between state and central regulations, impacting future administrative actions concerning public distribution in West Bengal.

Date of Decision: August 2, 2024

Setara Begam vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Latest Legal News