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.