LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that individuals or public at large (i.e. consumers) have no vested right to claim that subsidy should be mandatorily provided to them in purchase of wheat or flour.

Therefore, the court in the absence of any law or policy justifying the same cannot issue directions to the government to provide the commodity to the consumers at subsidised rates, Justice Muzamil Akhtar Shabbir observed.

In a judgement passed on public interest petitions, the judge ruled that the supply of free wheat flour to less privileged cannot be questioned before a court as it is for the government to provide those living below poverty line with sources to ensure provision of food to them. He noted the government, if the situation demands, could provide free of cost flour to the people who cannot purchase it from their own sources.

The petitions challenged the release price of Rs3,900 fixed by the caretaker government of Punjab for being illegal, unconstitutional, abuse of authority and violation of the Election Act, 2017.

It asked the court to strike down the price and direct the government to restore the release price of Rs2,200 per 40kg along with the subsidy forthwith provided in the past in the shape of sale at the rate of Rs1,765 per 40kg in the best interest and larger public interest. The petitions also questioned the distribution of free of cost flour as Ramazan package.

Consumers have ‘no right’ to claim mandatory subsidy, court observes

The judge maintained that the contention that supply of free wheat by the government be stopped to provide wheat and flour to the other citizens at subsidised rates was without any legal justification. The court held that the supply of free of cost flour under Ramazan package being a policy decision of the government did not suffer from any discrimination, rather was based on intelligent differentia and reasonable classification. The matter, therefore, did not merit to be interfered with by this court, the judge added.

The court endorsed an argument of the government that due to early supply of wheat to mills, the previous stocks were diminishing and in view to avoid likelihood of shortage, wheat was procured at higher rate through import and other sources and as the market sources control the price of wheat and flour therefore, the price at which the wheat was to be provided to the flour mills had to be raised to Rs3,900 per 40 kg, which price had also been fixed by providing huge subsidy because the latest market price was much higher.

Justice Shabbir observed that the pricing of commodities like wheat involved several factors including market forces and such determination fell within the exclusive domain of the executive and policies framed by them. He noted the court did not ordinarily interfere in the policy decisions of government unless the same were shown to be without lawful authority.

While rejecting another argument of the petitioners that the caretaker government could not have fixed the prices of wheat by enhancing the previous prices, which was allegedly against the Elections Act, 201, the judge mentioned that the caretaker government by its mandate provided by Section 230(a) of Elections Act, 2017 was empowered to manage and take necessary steps to deal with possible shortage of a commodity as the same related to the day to day matters necessary to run the affairs of the government.

Dismissing the petitions, Justice Shabbir ruled that fixation of price did not in any manner amount to unjust enrichment of the government as benefit of the same was being provided to deserving people.

Published in Dawn, April 22nd, 2023