Jaswant Singh Son Of Shri Ratan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6468 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6468 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Jaswant Singh Son Of Shri Ratan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 September, 2022

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14674/2022

Jaswant Singh Son Of Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Gram Panchayat Khohra, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, And
        Food Commissioner, Food Civil Supply And Consumer
        Affairs Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.      District Collector, Bharatpur (Raj.)
3.      District Supply Officer, Bharatpur (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Gupta for Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh Gurjar, Dy.G.C. with Ms. Garima Yadav

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

30/09/2022

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 Khohra Tehsil

Bayana with FPS Code No.11511.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

revision/appeal against the order cancelling the authorization letter

(2 of 4) [CW-14674/2022]

issued in his favour is pending consideration before the

appellate/revisional authorities. 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/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

(3 of 4) [CW-14674/2022]

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."