Public Distribution Scheme: High Court restricts issuing of general mandamus where it causes hardship, directs immediate replacement of cancelled shops

Public distribution scheme challenges concerned maintainability of writs while statutory appeals remained pending and the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction where relief caused public hardship. The HC reasoned that issuance of a general mandamus cancelling fair price shop licences without immediate settlement of replacement shops deprived Antyodaya and Annapurna beneficiaries of entitlements and was contrary to public interest; consequently such blanket mandamus directions must not be issued and any government orders in compliance shall be withdrawn, with directions to immediately settle fresh fair price shops for continued distribution. The petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a High Court may issue a general mandamus restraining settlement of fresh fair price shops pending disposal of appeals against cancellation of licences; and (ii) Whether fresh fair price shops should be immediately settled for beneficiaries pending the result of such appeals.

Analysis: The Court examined the effect of a blanket direction preventing settlement of fresh fair price shops while appeals against cancellation of licences remain pending, focusing on the impact on beneficiaries of the Public Distribution Scheme, particularly poor and remote card holders. The Court considered the scope of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court and the appropriateness of issuing generalized directions intended to address recurring litigation, weighing such directions against the hardship caused to large numbers of beneficiaries who would be deprived of convenient access to scheduled commodities.

Conclusion: (i) A general mandamus of the kind restraining settlement of fresh fair price shops pending appeals is not permissible; (ii) Fresh fair price shops should be settled immediately for the convenience of beneficiaries notwithstanding pendency of appeals, subject to the result of those appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: High Courts should not issue general or blanket mandamus in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction where such orders would cause widespread public hardship; administrative arrangements ensuring immediate settlement of replacement fair price shops pending appeal are appropriate to protect beneficiaries under the Public Distribution Scheme.

---