Sharad Tiwari & Anr. v. The Mother Dairy Limited & Anr.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed as a public interest litigation seeks; i) constitution by this Court of a Monitoring Committee to keep a watch on the cost of production of milk and the price of the sale of milk by the respondents Mother Dairy Ltd. and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, to enable the citizens of Delhi to get milk at controlled rate; ii) restrain against the respondents from increasing the price of milk more than once in two years; iii) directions to the respondents to, while so increasing the price, keep in view the increases for the last six years; iv) a direction to the respondents to fix the sale price of 2014:DHC:2917-DB milk with a reasonable profit only to the traders.

2. The petitioners have claimed the aforesaid reliefs by averring that in the year 2014 itself, the price of milk has been revised by the respondents twice; that there is in fact no shortage of milk and the shortage if any is man made; that the price of milk in the year 2009 was only Rs.24 per litre and in five years stands increased to Rs.50 per litre; that there has been no corresponding increase in the price paid by the respondents to the farmers / vendors of milk; that such increase in price affects children and aged persons who are the consumers thereof.

3. This Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, exercises supervisory jurisdiction. The petitioners, though have complain of increase in prices but except for generally saying that the price has nearly doubled in a span of five years, have not stated the mechanism adopted by the respondents for determining the sale price of milk. There is also no averment that the mechanism so prescribed for determination of price has not been followed. Price fixation is otherwise an Executive function and / or a matter of policy and this Court would not interfere in such price fixation or take upon it the fixation of the sale price of milk, if the authorities concerned in so fixing the price have not violated any law/ rule/ regulation/norm.

4. The Supreme Court in Premji Bhai Parmar Vs. Delhi Development Authority (1980) 2 SCC 129 and in Sitaram Sugar Company Limited Vs. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 223 has held that it is not the function of the Court to sit in judgment and interfere in price fixation matters or over such matters of economic policy and it must be left to the Court to decide the same. The same sentiment was echoed also in Union of India Vs. Cynamite India (1987) 2 SCC 720 where it was observed that price fixation is neither the function nor the forte of the Court; the Courts concern themselves neither with the policy nor with the rates; though the Court has jurisdiction in appropriate proceedings to enquire into the question, whether relevant considerations have gone in and irrelevant consideration kept out of the determination of price i.e. if the Legislature has decreed the pricing policy and prescribed the factors which should guide the determination of the price, the Courts will, if necessary, enquire into the question, whether the policy and the factors are present in the mind of the authorities specifying the price. It was clarified that the examination by the Court will stop there and the Court will not go further and will not deluge itself with more facts and figures. The FullBenchofthis Court also in Sheelawanti Vs. Delhi Development Authority AIR 1995 Delhi 212 on a conspectus of case law in this regard held that escalation in prices of the flats constructed by the DDA could not be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution and that when a public body enters into realm of contracts, it acts in its execution capacity and thereafter the relations are no longer governed by constitutional provisions but by contract. It was however clarified that the Courts have jurisdiction only to see whether prices demanded by the public body are whimsical or arbitrary and finding no ground to hold the price to be whimsical or arbitrary, interference was refused.

5. Before parting with the case, we may record that we have not gone into the question of maintainability of the writ petition against the respondent No.1 Mother Dairy, which question also though came for consideration in an earlier judgment of this Court, was left open.

6. There is thus no merit in the petition.

7. We may notice that though the counsel for the petitioners has not argued but there is another grievance in the writ petition of adding of synthetic and other substances in milk supply. However the counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the same and rather admits that an earlier petition claiming the same relief has, after inquiry already been disposed of. Dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J MAY 29, 2014 gsr/bs