The Tripura High Court on November 20, 2019, in the case of Sri Sachindra Chandra Das v. State of Tripura,
has held that the Court has no jurisdiction to invade/replace policy decisions of the government.
A single judge bench of Justice Arindam Lodh
while hearing a petition filed by adealer of Fair Price Shop, said that "The decision of the government was not to allow any person to run the Fair Price Shop other than the original licensee, is a policy decision of the government and the court has no jurisdiction to invade/replace the decision of the government."
The petitioner herein had executed a deed of Power of Attorney in favour of another person to run the Fair Price Shop on his behalf. Pursuant to this, a show cause notice was issued upon him by the Sub Divisional Magistrate stating inter alia that that appointment of a proxy dealer was contrary to the memorandum dated 18.03.2011 issued by the Director, Food, Civil supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Tripura.
In reply to the said notice, the petitioner stated that he has attained the age of 86 years and suffering from Parkinson disease for which he is unable to move independently without help of others and there is no other alternative but to engage one person/employee for smooth functioning of the F.P. Shop. Notwithstanding these arguments, the court was of the opinion that it could not grant any relief to the petitioner since it could not invade/replace the policy decisions of the government. "On a bare reading of this memorandum, it is clearly surfaced that the Government of Tripura has taken conscious decision not to allow any person other than the original licensee i.e. in favour of whom the license was/has been issued by the Licensing Authority. The admission of the petitioner clearly reveals that he runs his business of F.P. Shop in contradiction with the decision of the government, which was taken vide memorandum dated 18.03.2011, as aforestated. The decision of the government was not to allow any person to run the Fair Price Shop other than the original licensee, is a policy decision of the government and the court has no jurisdiction to invade/replace the decision of the government. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner has executed the Power of Attorney as well as allowed other person to run the business in contravention of the directives of the government,”
the Court held dismissing the petition. [Read Judgment]