Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4195/2021
Jai Singh S/o Shri Rawat Singh Rajput, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Village Beeda, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Food And Civil Supply And Consumer Affairs, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. The District Supply Officer, Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Jain
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
09/04/2021
In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is
being taken while hearing the matters in Court.
Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the
controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble
Court in Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.5862/2020) on 19.08.2020, which reads as follows:
"This writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner being
aggrieved with the order dated 28.04.2020 issued by
District Supply Officer, Bikaner, whereby the licence issued
to the petitioner for running a fair price shop at village
Sajanwasi, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner was suspended.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the licence of the petitioner for running a fair price shop
(Downloaded on 09/04/2021 at 09:27:57 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-4195/2021]
was suspended by the District Supply Officer, Bikaner while
invoking powers conferred upon him by Clause 8(2) of the
Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles
(Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 and under the said
powers, the maximum period for which a licence can be
suspended is 90 days, however, despite the expiry of 90
days, the respondents authorities are not restoring the
supply of essential commodities/ration materials to the
petitioner's fair price shop.
It is argued that the action of the respondents of not
restoring the petitioner's licence is illegal. It is prayed that
the respondents authority may be directed to restore the
licence of the petitioner for running the fair price shop
immediately.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
on decisions of this Court in Khemraj Darji vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., SBCWP No.16264/2017 decided on
10.05.2018 and in Ganpat Lal vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr., SBCWP No.4359/2020 decided on 02.06.2020.
In view of the above, the suspension of the
petitioner's licence for running fair price shop came an
automatic end after expiry of 90 days from 28.04.2020
and, therefore, the respondents are directed to resume the
supply of essential commodities to the petitioner's fair
price shop forthwith. However, the competent authority
shall be at liberty to conduct necessary enquiry in
accordance with law into the allegations of malpractices
attributed to the petitioner.
With the above observations and directions, the writ
petition is allowed.
Stay petition also stands disposed of."
In view of the above, the suspension of the petitioner's
license for running fair price shop came an automatic end after
expiry date on 20.04.2020, and therefore, the respondents are
directed to resume the supply of essential commodities to the
petitioner's fair price shop forthwith. However, the competent
authority shall be at liberty to conduct necessary enquiry in
(Downloaded on 09/04/2021 at 09:27:57 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-4195/2021]
accordance with law into the allegations of malpractices attributed
to the petitioner.
In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ
petition is allowed in the same terms. Stay petition also stands
disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
93-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
