Laxman Prasad Jain S/O Shri Amolak ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6511 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14727/2022

Laxman Prasad Jain S/o Shri Amolak Chand Jain, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Kasba Deeg, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur
(Raj.)

                                                                   ----Petitioner

                                     Versus

1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary And Food
         Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply And Consumer Matters
         Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2.       District Collector, Bharatpur (Raj.)

3.       District Supply Officer, Bharatpur (Raj.)

                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh Gurjar, Dy.G.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order

10/10/2022

Issue notice.

Notices are accepted by Mr. Bharat Singh Gurjar, learned

Deputy Government Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the advertisement

dated 29.08.2022 issued by the District Supply Officer, Bharatpur

inviting applications for issuance of new authorization letters for the

fair price shops for various places in the District Bharatpur including

the Ward No.8, Kasba Deeg, Teshil Deeg with FPS Code No.24870.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his revision

against the order cancelling the authorization letter issued in his

favour is pending consideration before the revisional authority. He,

relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated

(2 of 3) [CW-14727/2022]

08.01.2018 passed in DB Special Appeal Writ No.1792/2017:

Mukesh Kumar Meena versus the State of Rajasthan & Ors.,

submitted that during pendency of the appeal/revision, no new

authorization letter for the subject fair price shop can be issued. He,

therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed in terms of

directions issued by the Division Bench in case of Mukesh Kumar

Meena (supra).

Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the

aforesaid legal position.

In case of Mukesh Kumar Meena (supra) following direction

was issued:-

"2. This appeal is covered by the decision of this court

dated 27.11.2017, passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.1500/2017, reads as under:

1. Counsel for the respondent has pointed out

clause (iii) of order dt. 7.4.2010 (Annexure-5) which

reads as under:

Þ3-ftu nqdkuksa ds izdj.k ekuuh; jktLFkku mPPk U;k;ky;@v/khuLFk U;k;ky;@fjohtu U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu py jgs gSa] mu nqdkuksa dks U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; ls iwoZ fjDr ekuk tkdj mu ij ubZ fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh ugha dh tkos] rkfd U;k;ky; dh voekuuk ls cpk tk lds vkSj dksbZ fof/kd vM+pu mRiUu ugha gksAÞ

2. In view of the Government directions, the

District Supply Officer is bound to follow the directions

issued by the learned Single Judge which reads as

under:-

"In view of the facts given above, I do not find any ground to cause interference in the impugned order/s but pendency of the appeal/revision for indefinite period cannot be appreciated thus these writ petitions are disposed of with the directions to the appellate/revisional authority to decide it expeditiously and not later than one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If any of the appeals/revision petitions would be listed

(3 of 3) [CW-14727/2022]

during the period of one month then it would be heard and decided on the said date without deferring it on any ground whatsoever. It would include the excuse due to administrative reason or other work because hearing of the appeal is also administrative work. The direction aforesaid is required to be complied even to avoid complications, which may arise in case of acceptance of appeal/revision and in the meanwhile, if authorisation of fair price shop is given to others. Thus, the respondents would be expected to see aforesaid position also."

3. No authorization of fair price shop will be made which was allotted to the appellant. If it is done, it will not be finalized during the pendency of the appeal. The procedure will be kept in a sealed cover and if ultimately the present appellant succeeds in appeal, the seal cover will be opened otherwise the same will not be opened.

4. In that view of the matter, appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent that no authorization will be made pending the appeal.

5. The appellant will serve a copy of this order to the District Collector, Bharatpur and the Collector will comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and will decide the appeal on or before 30.12.2017."

3. In that view of the matter appeal stands allowed to the

aforesaid extent that no authorization will be made pending

the appeal."

Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by the

learned counsels for the respective parties and the material on

record, this Court deems it just and proper to allow this writ petition

in terms of order dated 08.01.2018 passed by the Division Bench in

case of Mukesh Kumar Meena (supra).

However, the revisional authority is further directed to expedite

hearing and disposal of the revision preferred by the petitioner

preferably within a period of one month from the date of

communication of this order.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

PRAGATI/236

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)