Rajasthan High Court
Chandra Mohan Saini vs Fazal Khan And Ors on 24 August, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2083/2017
1. Ramniwas S/o Jawahar Singh, R/o-Chekora, Post-
Chekora, Roopwas Bharatpur.
2. Vikram Singh S/o Rajendra Singh, R/o-Chekora, Post-
Chekora, Roopwas Bharatpur.
3. Prahlad Singh S/o Ramveer Singh, R/o-Chekora, Post-
Chekora, Roopwas Bharatpur.
4. Harvendra Singh S/o Omveer Singh, R/o-Chekora, Post-
Chekora, Roopwas Bharatpur.
5. Shaymbraj Singh S/o Bahadur Singh, R/o-Chekora, Post-
Chekora, Roopwas Bharatpur.
6. Ramesh Chand Rajawat S/o Bhagwan Singh, R/o-
Chekora, Post-Chekora, Roopwas Bharatpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Food
And Supply Department.
2. District Collector, Bharatpur.
3. District Supply Officer I, Bharatpur.
4. Dashrath Singh S/o Amar Singh, R/o-Chekora, Post-
Chekora, Roopwas Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Tailer for Mr. Rahul
Kamwar Abhisar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh Gurjar, Dy.G.C.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
24/08/2021
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition stating that
they are the residents of village Chekora, Tehsil Roopwas, District
Bharatpur and are regular consumers/beneficiaries of foodgrains
(2 of 3) [CW-2083/2017]
and commodities distributed by the fair price shops and have
therefore a locus to challenge the order passed by the District
Collector deciding the appeal filed by the respondents as against
the order of the District Supply Officer, Bharatpur whereby the
District Collector has remanded the matter back to the District
Supply Officer with direction to pass a fresh judgment after
recording the statement of witnesses and after examining the case
accordingly.
A query was raised to the learned counsel to show as to how
the petitioners can be said to be aggrieved of such an order which
admittedly allows the witnesses to be examined which may also
include a complainant.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are local
persons interested in supply of foodgrains and the fair price shops
run by the respondent was not in confirmity with the norms laid
down for the purpose and therefore he should not be allowed to
run the fair price shops.
I have considered the submissions.
A complainant has no locus to challenge the order of
suspension of fair price shop or the cancellation of such a license.
Since it is a license issued by the State Government, it is the State
Authorities who have to see that the conditions laid down in the
license are followed. The provisions are already available under
the Rajasthan Foodgrains & Other Essential Articles (Regulation of
Distribution) Order 1976. Provision of appeal is also provided
under Para 22 of the said Standing Order and the Collector is
empowered to pass an order. Thus, it cannot be said that the
order has been passed without an authority. From the nature of
(3 of 3) [CW-2083/2017]
the order, this Court finds that the order does not warrant any
interference as it only seeks to comply with the principles of
Natural Justice and giving fair opportunity of hearing to either
parties.
The petitioners have also not placed on record any document
to show that they were getting ration from the concerned fair
price shops.
A wholly frivolous litigation has been initiated through this
petitioner and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending
applications also stand dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NITIN/20
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
