"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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.

Similar News