Chote Lal Meena S/O Shri Kalu Ram ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3055 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2763/2022
Chote Lal Meena S/o Shri Kalu Ram Meena, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Gram Panchayat Ladali Ka Waas, Teh. - Nagal
Rajavatan, Distt - Dausa (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Food And Supply
       Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     Distt. Collector, Dausa (Raj.)
3.     Distt. Supply Officer, Dausa (Raj.)
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Sanjeev Sogarwal



     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                    Order

11/04/2022

This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and

validity of the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Court of

Additional Food Commissioner whereby the petitioner's revision

petition against the judgment dated 28.01.2020 passed by the

Court of District Collector, Dausa dismissing the appeal against the

order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the District Supply Officer,

Dausa, cancelling authorization letter of food grain issued to the

petitioner with recovery, has been dismissed.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner was granted a food

grain authorization letter in the year 1997. On the basis of two

inquiry reports dated 04.09.2015 and 10.11.2015 furnished by

Conversion Officer, Dausa in inquiries conducted against the

petitioner, he was served upon with a show cause notice requiring

(2 of 4) [CW-2763/2022]

him to furnish explanation alongwith relevant record. After giving

him an opportunity of hearing, the authorization letter was

cancelled by the District Supply Officer vide its order dated

01.03.2016 with order of recovery which was unsuccessfully

challenged by him by way of an appeal and thereafter by way of a

revision petition before the appellate authority and the revisional

authority respectively.

Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that the entire relevant record was seized by

the police in an FIR lodged against him and hence, he could not

produce the same. Learned counsel submitted that without looking

to the relevant record, his authorization letter has been cancelled.

He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the

order impugned be quashed and set aside.

Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the material on record reveals that petitioner's

authorization letter was cancelled by the District Supply Officer on

the basis of material on record including two inquiry reports

furnished by the Conversion Officer, Dausa wherein irregularities

were pointed out. The petitioner was served upon with a show

cause notice whereupon he submitted his reply. In its reply, he

has admitted that he made short supply of the oil to the

consumers; but, it was on account of a large number of ration

cards with him. With regard to non-production of record, he has

stated that record was always available with him but could not be

shown at the time of inspection on account of his absence. With

regard to allegation of not reflecting requisite information on the

notice board, it was submitted that it was erased by some naughty

(3 of 4) [CW-2763/2022]

boy. Thus, he has admitted some of the irregularities in his reply

albeit with some explanation which has not been found to be

reliable or satisfactory. A perusal of the order dated 01.03.2016

reveals that despite several opportunities to submit the record and

appear for personal hearing, the petitioner did not comply with

either. In those circumstances, on the basis of material on record,

his authorization letter was cancelled and recovery was ordered.

Thereafter, his appeal as also revision petition have been

dismissed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority

respectively. Although, a memo of appeal preferred by the

petitioner against the order dated 01.03.2016 has not been placed

on record; but, a perusal of the memo of revision petition

available on record does not reveal any averment by the petitioner

therein that he could not produce the record as it was seized by

the police authorities in the FIR lodged against him. Rather, it was

specifically stated therein that he made available the record and

the order impugned was passed without appreciating the same.

There is concurrent findings of facts by the District Supply

Officer, the appellate authority and the revisional authority based

on relevant record wherein, the petitioner has been found to be

violating not only conditions of the authorization letter but, the

statutory provisions also. This Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India does not sit as an appellate authority over

the findings recorded by the appellate authority/revisional

authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out the

order impugned to be suffering from any patent jurisdictional error

or perversity warranting interference of this Court under its limited

writ jurisdiction.

                                                                            (4 of 4)               [CW-2763/2022]


                                        The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.


                                                                              (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
                                   MADAN/62









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)