Executive power and reasonable classification upheld for fair price shop schemes favouring consumers' cooperative societies.

A State may frame a fair price shop distribution scheme under its executive power where the subject lies within its legislative competence, and the scheme is not invalid merely because it is not treated as a sub-delegated exercise of power under the Essential Commodities Act. The amendment and scheme also did not require fresh Central Government concurrence, laying before Parliament, or prior hearing, because the measure was legislative in character and the cited procedural objections were inapplicable. Preference to consumers' cooperative societies in allotment of fair price shops was upheld as a reasonable classification with a direct nexus to fair distribution of essential commodities, and no unlawful monopoly or discrimination arose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment to the control order and the related scheme were invalid for want of Central Government concurrence, failure of laying before Parliament, or breach of natural justice; (ii) Whether the scheme was invalid as an impermissible exercise of delegated power; (iii) Whether preference to cooperative societies in allotment of fair price shops was discriminatory.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment to the control order and the related scheme were invalid for want of Central Government concurrence, failure of laying before Parliament, or breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The amendment did not require fresh concurrence of the Central Government because the relevant delegated notifications made such concurrence necessary only for specified matters not covered by the impugned order. The order was not an ordinance and was not required to be laid before the Legislature within six months. The scheme framed by the State was not required to be laid before Parliament. The amendment was legislative in character, and no hearing was required before a legislative measure took effect.

Conclusion: The challenge on these grounds failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the scheme was invalid as an impermissible exercise of delegated power.

Analysis: The scheme for fair price shops was held to be an exercise of the State's own executive power under Article 162, coextensive with the legislative competence over foodstuffs, and not a sub-delegation of power under the Essential Commodities Act. The control order itself did not confer the relevant power on the Government, but the State was independently competent to frame such a distribution scheme.

Conclusion: The scheme was not invalid on the ground of delegated power.

Issue (iii): Whether preference to cooperative societies in allotment of fair price shops was discriminatory.

Analysis: The preference was directed to consumers' cooperative societies and was justified by the need to remedy persistent abuses in the existing distribution system. The classification was found to be reasonable and to have a direct nexus with the object of securing fair and assured supply of rations to consumers. No trader had a right to insist on appointment as an agent of the Government, and the preference did not amount to an unlawful monopoly.

Conclusion: The preference was held to be non-discriminatory.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order, the amendment, and the scheme were upheld, and the petitions and special leave matters were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A State may, in exercise of its executive power, frame a fair price shop distribution scheme and prefer cooperative societies where the classification is reasonable and directly connected to the object of securing equitable distribution of essential commodities; such legislative action does not attract prior hearing, and no monopoly or discrimination arises merely from the preference.

---