http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11

PETITIONER:

KRISHNAN KAKKANTN

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/10/1996

BENCH:

S.N. RAY, B.L. HANSARIA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

G.N. RAY, J.

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The

constitutional validity of the circular dated 19.5.1995

issued by the Secretary to the Government of Kerala

directing that for distribution of pumpsets under

comprehensive coconut Development Programme and other

similar schemes of the Agriculture Department and in order

to streamline the implementation of the schemes specifying

specific roles and responsibilities for different agencies

involved, M/S Kerala Agro Industries Corporation (KAICO and

Regional Agro Industries Corporation (RAIDCO) would arrange

supply of pump[sets in the districts of Kesarkoda, Kanner,

vyanad, Koznikoda, Malappuram, Palekkao, Trissur and

Kottayam and in the remaining districts, supply will be

effected by private dealers along with KAICO and RAIDCO,

since challenged by the appellants in O.P. No. 16115 of

1995, but upheld by the impugned judgment on the High Court

dated February, 1996 is in question in this appeal, Such

writ petition was disposed by a common judgment along with

other writ petitions being O.A. Nos, 13936 and 14454 of

1995, In the said other writ petitions, the constitutional

validity of the circular dated 30.3.1989 issued by the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies inter alia directing

that all the Land Development Banks, District Co-operative

Banks and Service Co-operative Banks in the State of Kerala

would patronise RAIDCO to the fullest extent in preference

to private dealers in the matter of purchase of Agro Machine

under the scheme financed by the Bank/Societies and at in

any rate not less than 75% of total requirement of such Agro

Machines should be purchased through RAIDCO, was challenged.

The High Court has also upheld the validity of such circular

by the impugned judgment.

It may be stated that in the circular dated 19.9.1995

issued by the Secretary to the Government of Kerala it was

also indicated that pumpsets and accessories of the farmer's

choice alone should be supplied and after sale service

facility should be provided by suppliers/dealers. It was

also indicated that the cost of pumpsets and accessories

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11

would be supplied at a lesser price than that fixed by the

State level Technical Committee and necessary advance amount

would be provided to KAICO and RAIDCO for taking advance

action for implementing the scheme.

It will also be appropriate to state that in the

circular dated 30.3.1989 issued by the Registrar of Co-

operative Societies, it was indicated that RAIDCO was the

only co-operative in the state under the Co-operative

Department, having a net work of branches for distribution

of all sorts of pumpsets etc. RAIDCO has dealership of

almost all important pumpsets manufactures in the country

and RAIDCO was sole distributor for Villiers,

Petrol/Kerosene engines manufactured by M/s Enfield India

Ltd. In addition, RAIDCO has set up its factory at Palghat

with NCDC assistance for the manufacture of pumpsets in

collaboration with M/s Kirloskar Bros. Explaining the

justification of the said circular, it was also indicated:

"Though this is a Co-operative

Institution, it is felt that the

Co-operative bank including the

Land Development Banks in the State

do not patronise, this society

faces stiff competition with

private dealers. The District Co-

op. Bank, Cannanore and Kasargode

have taken policy decisions to the

effect that the loans sanctioned by

them to the primary societies, for

the purchase of Agricultural

implements shall be routed only

through this Co-operative. This

being a society assisted by the

Government substantially, it is

necessary in the interests of

Government also that it functions

properly with good business.

In the circumstances. all the

Land Development Banks. District

Co-op. Banks and Service Co-

operative Banks in the State are

directed to patronise RAIDCO to the

fullest extent in preference to

private dealers. At any rate not

less than 75% of the total

requirement of Agro Machineries

under the scheme financed by the

Banks/Societies should be purchased

through RAIDCO."

Mr. Venugopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the

appellant, has submitted that the circular dated 19.5.95

issued by the Secretary to the Government of Kerala

directing that in eight districts mentioned in the circular

only RAIDCO and KAICO would arrange supply of pumpsets and

in other parts of the State of Kerala the said RAIDCO and

KAICO along with private dealers would arrange the

distribution of such pumpsets under Comprehensive Coconut

Development Programme and other similar schemes, offends

Articles 14 and 19(i) (g) of the Constitution.

Mr. Venugopal has contended that private dealers in the

State of Kerala have a fundamental right under Article

19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on the business or

sale of pumpsets and dealership in the pumpsets without

being subjected to any unreasonable restriction in such

trading activities. The aforesaid circular imposes embargo

on the farmers of eight districts covered by financial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11

schemes introduced by the Government to purchase such

pumpsets from any dealer of their choice. They have been

compelled to select pumpsets to be offered by RAIDCO and

KAICO only even if better terms and conditions of sale and

after sales service are offered by private dealers.

Mr. Venugopal has submitted that it does not require

any imagination to accept that majority of the farmers will

take the financial assistance under the schemes introduced

by the Government for purchase of pump sets. If such

majority of consumers of pumpsets are compelled to purchase

from the said tow organizations, namely, RAIDCO and KAICO,

the private dealers right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g)

to carry on trading activities without being subjected to

unreasonable restriction, is bound to suffer.

Mr Venugopal has further submitted that fundamental

right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) may not be an

absolute right and such right may be subjected to reasonable

restriction but such reasonable restriction may be imposed

by statutory law and regulation on cogent grounds justifying

the reasonable restriction imposed with reference to the

object for which reasonable restriction is imposed. In this

connection. Mr. Venugopal has relied on a decision of this

Court in Kharak Singh Versus State of U.P. (AIR 1963 SC

1295). A Constitution Bench of this Court considered the

validity of Regulation 236 clause (b) of U.P. police

Regulations. It has been held in the said decision that if

the petitioner who has challenged the constitutional

validity of the Regulation is able to establish that the

impugned Regulation constitutes an infringement of any of

the freedom guaranteed to him by the Constitution, then the

only manner in which this violation of the fundamental right

can be defended is by justifying the impugned action taken

by the police under the said Regulation by reference to a

valid law, i.e. be it a statute, a statutory law or a

statutory regulation. (emphasis supplied)

The regulation contained in Chapter XX of the U.P.

Police Regulations under which Regulation 237 is placed,

have no such statutory basis but are merely executive or

departmental instructions framed for the guidance of the

police officers. They are, therefore, not a law which the

State is entitled to make under relevant clauses (2) to (6)

of Article 19 in order to regulate or curtail fundamental

rights guaranteed by the several clauses under Article 19(1)

nor can the same be "a procedure established by law." within

Article 21 of the Constitution.

Mr. Venugopal has submitted that as the said circular

of the Government clearly impinges upon the right to trading

activities of dealers in pumpsets etc. and such restriction

against free and uncontrolled trading activities guaranteed

under Article 19 of the Constitution is sought to be

imposed, not through any statute or statutory rules and

regulations or by any procedure established by law, but only

on the basis of executive direction of the State Government,

the said unreasonable restriction sought to be introduced by

the said impugned circular must be held violative of Article

19(1) (g) of the Constitution.

Mr. Venugopal has contended that it has not been

demonstrated that as a matter of fact the private dealers in

the said eight districts were not supplying genuine pump set

etc. or they were charging price for such implements at a

rate higher that offered by RAIDCO or KAICO or that after

sales service of the private dealers is unsatisfactory

thereby causing hardship to the farmers purchasing pump

sets etc. from the private dealers. Accordingly, there can

not be any reasonable ground to give a favorable treatment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11

to a particular dealer or dealers and by giving unjustified

favorable treatment to such dealers. an unfortunate

situation has been created by which right to free trading

activities of the dealers in pump sets etc. is seriously

infringed.

Mr. Venugopal has also submitted that a vast majority

of the purchasers of such pumps sets etc. are also being

deprived of their unfettered right to choose the dealers of

their choice of such pump sets because of the embargo on

such farmers who have been given financial assistance under

the schemes of the State Government that they are to take

delivery of pump sets only from two dealers namely RAIDCO

and KAICO. While the farmers covered under financial

assistance in areas outside the said eight districts are

free to choose their dealers and to strike better bargain in

an open competitive market, the farmers in eight districts

have been deprived of such free choice and consequential

opportunity of striking better bargain on account of open

competition. Mr. Venugopal has submitted that when

Government has taken a decision to give largesses to the

farmers by introducing benevolent schemes of financial

assistance, the Government cannot discriminate between

farmers of one area and farmers of another area in

controlling the recipients of such largesses. In this

connection reference to the decision of this Court in Ramana

Dayarm Shetty versus The international Airport Authority of

India (AIR 1979 SC 1628) has been made. In the said decision

this court has held:

"It must, therefore, be taken to be

the law that where the Government

in dealing with the public. Whether

by way of giving jobs or entering

into contracts or issuing quotas or

licences or granting other forms of

largess, the Government cannot act

arbitrarily at its sweet will and

like a private individual, deal

with any person it pleases, put its

action must be in conformity with

standard or form which is not

arbitrary, irrational or

irrelevant. The power of discretion

of the Government in the matter of

grant of largess including award of

job contracts. quota, licences etc,

must be confined and structured by

rational, relevant and non-

discriminatory standards or norm

and if the Government departs from

such standard or norm in any

particular case of cases, the

action of the Government would be

liable to be struck down, unless it

can be shown by the Government that

the departure was not arbitrary,

but was based on some valid

principle which in itself was not

irrational, unreasonable or

discriminatory".

Mr. Venugopal has submitted that there is no

demonstrable foundation on fact that there was impelling

reasons to treat the farmers of eight districts, who got

financial assistance under the schemes of the State

Government differently, thereby compelling them to take

delivery of pump sets from only two dealers. Hence, such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11

action must be held to be arbitrary, capricious and

discriminatory without being informed by reason. The

circular is therefore liable to be struck down also on the

score of offending Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr

Venugopal has submitted that the impugned circular has

resulted in creating a discriminatory monopoly in favour of

only two dealers in the eight districts of the State in the

dealership business because by and large most of the farmers

purchasing pump sets etc. are covered by schemes introduced

by the Government. Mr. Venugopal, therefore, has submitted

that the hostile discrimination meted out to the farmers of

eight districts and also dealers in pump sets etc. without

any just reason, must be held violative of Articles 14 and

19 of the Constitution and should be struck down by this

Court by allowing this appeal.

Mr. K.N. Bhat, learned Additional Solicitor General

appearing for the State of Kerala, has however disputed the

contentions of Mr. Venugopal. He has submitted that no

action has been taken by the Government to regulate or

control the business of dealership of pump sets etc. in the

State of Kerala. Hence question of violating the fundamental

right guaranteed under Article 19 (i) (g) of the

Constitution does not arise. Mr. Bhat has submitted that

unless any action has a direct impact on the right to carry

on any trade or business, such action cannot be held to be

violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Article

19(i) (g). If the action of the executive only indirectly

creates some prejudice in carrying on any trade or business

such action per se does not offend Article 19(i) (g). In

support of such contention, Mr Bhat has referred to the

decision of this Court in Viklad Coal Merchant Patiala

versus Union of India (1984 (1) SCR 657 (682). In the said

case, the Coal Merchant challenged the vires of Section 27A

of the Indian Railways Act and circular issued thereunder

relating to preferential Traffic Schedule providing for

priorities for movement of different goods. A circular was

issued by the Ministry of Railways in connection with

movement of some goods including coal. The petitioners who

were coal merchants, alleged that sum total of various

restrictions imposed by giving abbreviation GX against all

way side stations in the coal belt and restricting loading

of coal in wagons from the stations categorised as GX and

introducing preferential Traffic Schedule, in their

cumulative effect resulted in total ban on transport of coal

by Railways at their instance and such actions were

violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.

Repelling such contention, it has been held by this Court

that whenever the court is called upon to examine the

complaint that restrictions imposed on the freedom to carry

on trade are unreasonable, it is necessary to find out what

is the trade and business of the complainant-petitioner and

to what extent the restriction, if any, is imposed upon the

freedom to carry on trade or business and then to determine

whether the restriction is' reasonable or not. It is the

direct impact of the restriction on the freedom to carry on

trade that has to be kept in view and not the ancillary or

incidental effects of the governmental action on the freedom

to carry on trade.

(Emphasis supplied)

It has also been indicated that prima facie it appears that

petitioners business or trade as coal merchants is in no way

interfered with by the Railways by not being able to provide

transport facilities. Railway is not the only means of

transport. There are other means of transport by which coal

can be transported by the petitioners to their respective

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11

place of business. Even assuming that the direct impact of

the policy laid down by the Railway administration pursuant

to the orders of the Central Government under Section 27A

results in denial of the allotment of wagon to the

petitioners, the restriction will none-the -less be

reasonable because petitioners are not wholly denied the

allotment of wagons. (Emphasis Supplied)

Mr. Bhat has contended that trading activities in pump

sets etc have not been controlled or regulated. Even within

the area comprising the said eight districts, any dealer is

free to carry on its trading activities in respect of pump

sets. By the impugned circular, the State Government has

only ensured that farmers in the said eight districts who

have been given financial assistance under a scheme of the

Government, should take delivery of pump sets from RAIDCO

and KAICO, Any other farmer or purchaser is quite free to

choose his dealer. Such limited restriction is' also not

there in respect of farmers, even though covered by the

financial assistance under the scheme of the Government, who

are outside the area comprising the said eight districts. It

is, therefore quite apparent that there is no total ban of

purchase of pump sets from private dealers in the State of

Kerala.

Mr. Bhat has submitted that it is quite open to the

Governments to select appropriate dealers in pump sets for

supply of pump sets to farmers or agriculturists to whom

financial assistance has been given under scheme of the

State Government. After all, the State Government will be

within its right to ensure supply of genuine pump sets at a

desired price and proper after sales service through its

approved dealers so that the schemes are effectively

implemented by appropriate utilization of the pump sets over

a reasonable period and, on such utilization, the concerned

farmer may day back the financial assistance received by

him.

Mr. Bhat has further submitted that the impugned

circular clearly indicates that for distribution of pump

sets under the schemes of the Government and for

streamlining the implementation of the schemes specifying

specific rules and responsibilities of different agencies

involved. the directions contained in the circular have been

given.

Mr. Bhat has also submitted that there is no compulsion

to any of the farmers to get covered under the scheme. If

any farmer within the said eight districts, feels that it

will be more advantageous for him to take delivery of pump

sets from a dealers, he may not avail the financial

assistance under the scheme. It is only when such assistance

is to be taken the choice of selecting dealer has not been

left to his discretion.

Mr. Bhat has contended that it is immaterial if some of

the dealers are prepared to supply pump sets on more

favorable terms. In the instant case, the Government has

felt that pump sets should be supplied to farmers covered

under the financial assistance scheme through the dealers of

its choice in eight districts. The choice of dealers has

also not been made on the josi dixit of the Governmental

authorities. The circular issued by the Secretary of Co-

operative Societies has indicated that RAIDCO is the only

state sponsored Co-operative Society having dealership of

almost all varieties of pump sets. It has been ensures that

both RAIDCO and KAICO will sell pump sets at a price lower

than that fixed by State Level Technical Committee and will

give proper after sales service. In the impugned circular,

it has been indicated that necessary advance amount will be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11

provided to RAIDCO and KAICO for taking advance action for

implementing the scheme. Mr Bhat has submitted that it is

not feasible to give advance to large number of dealers. Nor

is it a practicable proposition to keep proper watch and

supervision in the functioning of large number of dealers.

Therefore selection of the said two dealers is neither

unreasonable nor capricious.

Mr. Bhat has also submitted that for the entire state

of Kerala, the said two dealers could have been selected by

the State Government as approved dealers. But as Co-

operative movement is less organised in areas outside the

said eight districts, the State Government did not feel any

necessity to ensure purchase of pump sets in such areas only

from said two dealers. Mr Bhat has, therefore, submitted

that any interference by this Court against the impugned

judgment is not called for and appeal should be dismissed.

Mr Dipankar Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for

the other respondents, has also supported the contentions of

Mr Bhat. Mr. Gupta has submitted that RAIDCO is a state

owned co-operative society having large number of branches

in the State of Kerala. It has also the dealership of almost

all brands of pump sets. It also manufactures pump sets in

collaboration with Kirlosker,RAIDCO has elaborate

arrangement for after sales service. KAICO is also an

established Co-operative Society having dealership in pump

sets. The Government, providing finance to farmers and

agriculturists, providing finance to farmers and

agriculturist, certainly has anxiety to ensured that such

farmers and agriculturists should get supply of pump sets

from such dealer on which the Government may repose

confidence.

If on such consideration, the two dealers have been

selected for supplying pump sets in the said eight

districts, to the farmers and agriculturists, no exception

can be taken by alleging that such course of action

infringes Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

Mr. Gupta has submitted that dealership business in the

State of Kerala or in the region comprising the said eight

districts has not been regulated and controlled. It is still

open to all the dealers to carry on trading activities in

the dealership of pump sets in such areas. Mr Gupta has

further submitted that the executive instructive instruction

of the State Government in fixing two dealers in the eight

districts has been issued for streamlining and safeguarding

the interest of the Government because of large scale

malpractices prevalent and found to be indulged in by the

private pump set dealers contrary to the interest of the

economy of the State.

Referring to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 2

RAIDCO. Mr Gupta has submitted that is was brought to the

notice of the Agricultural Department of the State

Government that false invoice had been issued without

effecting actual sale of the pump sets with a view to draw

loans, subsidies and other financial benefit from the

Government. There had been newspaper report about this wide

spread manipulations and irregularities in the activities of

various private dealers in the matter of sale of pump sets

against subsidies and financial assistance from the

Government.

Mr. Gupta has also contended that it has been indicated

in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2 that co-

operative movements are stronger in northern regions

comprising the said eight districts where pump sets are sold

in large numbers. There was, therefore, a felt necessity to

fix approved dealers in such ares by the Government. Mr.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11

Gupta has further contended that the dealers are not

recipients of loans or financial assistance from the

Government. The farmers have not raised any dispute that by

the impugned Government circular, they have suffered any

prejudice whatsoever, The selection of two dealers in

northern region of the State is not only within the right

and competence of the State Government but such selection is

not also otherwise arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

Hence, question of infringement of Articles 14 and 19 of the

Constitution does not arise. The appeal should, therefore,

be dismissed.

After giving our careful consideration to the facts and

circumstances of the case and submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the

fundamental right for trading activities of the dealers in

pump sets in the State of Kerala as guaranteed under Article

19(1) (g) of the Constitution has not been infringed by the

impugned circular. Fundamental rights guaranteed under

Article 19 of the Constitution are not absolute but the same

are subject to reasonable restrictions to be imposed against

enjoyment of such rights. Such reasonable restriction seeks

to strike a balance between the freedom guaranteed by any of

the clauses under Article 19(1) and the social control

permitted by the clauses (2) to (6) under Article 19.

The reasonableness of restriction is to be determined

in an objective manner and from the standpoint of the

interests of general public and not from the standpoint of

the interests of the persons upon whom the restriction are

imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot

be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case,

it operates harshly and even if the persons affected be

petty traders (AIR 1958 SC 73- Hanif Versus State of Bihar).

In determining the infringement of the right guaranteed

under Article 19(1), the nature of right alleged to have

been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction

imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be

remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the

prevailing conditions at the time, enter into judicial

verdict (AIR 1981 SC 673 Laxmi ) versus State of U.P.; AIR

1968 SC 1323 Treveli Versus State of Gujarat and Herekchand

vs. Union of India. India. AIR 1970 SC 1453).

Under Clause (1) (g) of Article 19, every citizen has a

freedom and right to choose his own employment or take up

any trade or calling subject only to the limits as my be

imposed by the State in the interests of public welfare and

the other grounds mentioned in clause (6) of Article 19. But

it may be emphasised that the Constitution does not

recognise franchise or rights to business which are

dependent on grants by the State or business affected by

public interest Saghir vs. State of U.P. 1955 (1) SCR 707).

It may be indicated that where a right is conferred on

a particular individual or group of individuals to the

exclusion of others, the reasonableness of restrictions has

to be determined with reference to the circumstances

relating to the trade or business in question. Canalisation

of a particular business in favour of specified individual

has been held reasonable by this Court where vital interests

of the community are concerned or when the business affects

the economy of the country (P.T.C.S Vs. R.T.A. AIR 1960 SC

801: Meenakshi Mills Vs. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 366 and

Lala Harichand Seroa Vs. Mizo District Council and Anr,

1967(1) SCR 1012).

It is true that even for imposing reasonable

restriction on the fundamental right guaranteed under

Article 19(1), the restriction is to be imposed under a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11

valid law, be it a statutory law or statutory regulation,

and not by any executive instruction of the Government.

[Knarak Singh's case (supra)].

But in the instant case, no fundamental right

guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution has

been infringed. Hence, question of invalidity on account of

imposition of reasonable restriction on the exercise of such

right by executive order instead by a statute does not arise

in the facts of the case.

It may be indicated that although a citizen has a

fundamental right to carry on a trade or business, he has no

fundamental right to insist upon the Government or any other

individual for doing business with him. Any government or an

individual has got a right to enter into contract with a

particular person or to determine person or person with whom

he or it will deal.

In the instant case, the farmer or agriculturist who

has chosen to receive subsidies or financial assistance

under the schemes of the Government has an obligation to

accept the terms and conditions for such assistance. One of

such condition is that in the northern region of the state.

Pump set for which financial assistance has been given is to

be purchased from the approved dealers of the Government.

The private dealer cannot insist that the Government is also

to enter into contract with any such private dealer to make

it an approved dealer. Since the Government has every right

to select dealers of its choice for delivery or pump sets at

the price agreed upon and to render after sales service to

the purchasers of pump sets covered by its financial

assistance scheme. It is not open to challenge such

selection of dealers on the score that such selection

amounts to unreasonable restriction imposed on the dealers

of the State to carry on trading activities in pump sets. It

is nobody's case that all the farmers and agriculturist have

been compulsorily covered under such schemes. On the

contrary, it is open to any farmer or agriculturist not to

volunteer for taking such assistance.

It has already been indicated that in Vikalad's case

(supra), it has been held by this Court that infringement of

fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) must have a direct

impact on the restriction on the freedom to carry on trade

and not ancillary or incidental effects on such freedom to

trade and not ancillary or incidental effects on such

freedom to trade arising out of any governmental action. It

has also been held in that case that unless the trader or

merchant is not wholly denied to carry on his trade, the

restriction imposed in denying the allotment of wagon in

favour of such trader or merchant to transport coal for

carrying put trading activities does not offend Article

19(1) (g) of the Constitution. No restriction has been

imposed on the trading activity of dealers in pump sets in

the State of Kerala including northern region comprising

eight districts. Even in such area, a dealer is free to

carry on his business. Such dealer, even in the absence of

the said circular, cannot claim as a matter of fundamental

right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) that a farmer or

agriculturist must enter into a business deal with such

trader in the matter of purchase of pump sets. Similarly,

such trader also cannot claim that the Government should

also accept him as an approved dealer of the Government. The

trading activity in dealership of pump sheets has not been

stopped or even controlled or regulated generally. The

dealer can deal with purchasers of pump sets without any

control imposed on it to carry on such business. The

obligation to purchase from approved dealer has been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11

fastened only to such farmer or agriculturist who has

volunteered to accept financial assistance under the scheme

on various terms and conditions.

In our view the impugned circular does not offend

Article 14 of the constitution. The direction contained in

said circular cannot be held to be vitiated being

arbitrary,capricious or unreasonable. The impugned circular

specifically mentions that in order to implement the schemes

introduced by the Government for streamlining specific rules

and responsibilities of different agencies involved, the

directions contained in the circular have been given. It has

been placed on record that it was brought to the notice of

the agricultural department of the State Government that

false invoice had been issued by dealers with out effecting

actual sales with a view to draw loans, subsidies and other

financial benefits from the Government. Reports were

published in newspapers about wide spread manipulation and

irregularities in the activities of various dealers in the

pumpsets. It is also not in dispute that RAIDCO is only

government controlled co-operative society in the State of

which eighty per cent capital was subscribed by the

Government. The other approved dealer KAICO is also a Co-

operative society involved in dealership of pump sets. If

the State Government on consideration of such facts and

circumstances and to ensure genuine sale of pump sets at

proper price with effective after sales service has felt

that farmers covered by financial assistance scheme should

be fastened with an obligation to purchase pump sets only

from approved dealers in a region where according to State

Government there is a felt need of purchase from such

approved dealers, it cannot be held that such action of the

State Government lies in its ipsi dixit, without being

informed by any reason.

To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the

context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not

necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the

wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is

immaterial if a better or more comprehensive policy decision

could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be

demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is

likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has

been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably

capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason

whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or

infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the

policy decision can not be struck down. It should be borne

in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a

public policy in the context of illegality and

unconstitutionality, court should avoid " embarking on

uncharted ocean of public policy."

The contention that the impugned circular suffers from

hostile discrimination meted out to the farmers in northern

region of the State covered by the financial assistance

under the Governmental schemes, by fastening such assistance

with an obligation to purchase pump sets only from the two

approved dealers, cannot be accepted in the facts of the

case, The reasons for fastening the farmers of northern

region with the obligation to purchase pump sets from the

said two dealers have been indicated by Mr. Bhat and Mr.

Gupta and, in our view, it cannot be held that such

reasoning suffers from lack of objectivity. The law is well

settled that even in the matter of grant of largese, award

of job contracts etc, the Government is permitted to depart

from the general norms set down by it, in favour of

particular group of persons by subjecting such persons with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11

different standard or norm, if such departure is not

arbitrary but based on some valid principle which in itself

is not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory [Dayaram

Shetty's case (supra)].

It may be stated here that Mr.Venugopal's contention

that the impugned circular has resulted in black listing of

the private dealers of pump sets without even giving them an

opportunity of being heard cannot be accepted. In our view,

it cannot be reasonably contended that if the Government

selects a dealer as its approved dealer the same may mean

that all the other dealers have been black listed. The

question of black listing does not arise because it is

nobody's case that all other dealers were previously

approved dealers of the Government but by the impugned

circular, they have been suddenly stripped of such status

without affording them an opportunity of being heard.

In the aforesaid facts, we do not find any reason to

inferfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The

appeal therefore fails and is dismissed without any order as

to cost.