Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: Supreme Court Failure To Comply With Statutory Mandate Under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC Renders Ex Parte Injunction Unsustainable: Karnataka High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Withdrawal of Cabinet's Recommendations for Legislative Council Nominations Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Absence of Premeditation and Motive Desertion Means More Than Physical Separation, Includes Willful Neglect: Delhi High Court Director’s Liability Under Section 138 NI Act Ends with Resignation: Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against Former Director in Cheque Dishonor Case No Proof, No Ownership: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Baseless Inheritance Suit Judicial Orders of Civil Courts Not Amenable to Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction: Patna High Court Chastity of a Woman Is a Priceless Possession; Unfounded Allegations Justify Wife’s Right to Live Separately: Orissa High Court Temporary Injunction Denied Based on Unstamped and Unregistered Agreement: Madhya Pradesh High Court Temple Surplus Funds Cannot Be Used for Shopping Complex Construction: Madras High Court Bail | Evidence Is Primarily Documentary And Already Recovered, Custodial Interrogation Of The Accused Is Not Necessary: Kerala High Court Delhi High Court Directs Respondents to Secure ₹157.75 Crores in Gas Supply Dispute Under Section 9 of Arbitration Act Arrest of Woman Post-Sunset Without Prior Judicial Permission Illegal: Bombay High Court

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