Rajasthan High Court
Ramesh Chand Son Of Shri Jitmal Jat vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 September, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13808/2022
Ramesh Chand Son Of Shri Jitmal Jat, Aged About 66 Years,
Resident Of Village Panchayat Mai, Tehsil Nadbai, 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 with
Ms. Sudha Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh Gurjar, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
20/09/2022
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 Gram Panchayat Mai, Tehsil
Nadbai, District Bharatpur with FPS Code No.12183.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his appeal
against the order cancelling the authorization letter issued in his
(2 of 4) [CW-13808/2022]
favour is pending consideration before the District Collector,
Bharatpur in pursuance of judgment dated 28.07.2021 passed by
the revisional authority whereby, while partly allowing the revision
petiton, the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority
to decide it afresh. He, relying upon a Division Bench judgment of
this Court dated 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,
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
(3 of 4) [CW-13808/2022]
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
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
(4 of 4) [CW-13808/2022]
petition in terms of order dated 08.01.2018 passed by the Division
Bench in case of Mukesh Kumar Meena (supra).
However, the appellate authority is further directed to
expedite hearing and disposal of the appeal preferred by the
petitioner preferably within a period of one month from the date of
communication of this order.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/105
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
