Vinod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3198 Raj

[2023/RJJD/010485]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18456/2019

Vinod Kumar S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 39 Years, Ward No.11, Post Office Bilochanwala, 2 L.k.s., Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Food And Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. District Collector (Supply), Hanumangarh.

3. District Supply Officer, Hanumangarh.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. BS Sandhu
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Dinesh Jain



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                         Order

18/04/2023

1. The petitioner's license to run fair price shop was suspended

vide order dated 24.01.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the period of more than 90 days has since lapsed and

the validity of the suspension has therefore expired.

2. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies upon a

judgment dated 10.05.2018 passed by a Co-ordinate bench of this

Court in the case of Khemraj Darji Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

In case of Khemraj Darji (supra), this Court has held:

"In view of this legal position, the suspension of the petitioner's licence of fair price shop came an automatic end on 24.10.2017. As a direct consequence thereof, the adamancy of the

[2023/RJJD/010485] (2 of 2) [CW-18456/2019]

authoritites in refusing to supply the essential commodities/ ration materials to the petitioner's shop is absolutely unjustifiable. It is manifest that once the suspension order had come to an end automatically upon expiry of 90 days, there cannot be any justification for the respondents in refusing to resume the supply of essential commodities/ ration materials to the petitioner's fair price shop. Thus, the officers of the Civil Supply Department are directed to resume the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner's fair price shop forthwith. However, the competent authority shall be at liberty to conduct expeditious inquiry into the allegations of malpractices attributed to the petitioner and pass appropriate order after conclusion thereof as per law. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Stay application is disposed of."

3. Mr. Dinesh Jain, is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid

portion of facts and law.

4. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. It is declared that the

suspension of the petitioner's fair price shop which was effected

pursuant to order dated 28.01.2019, has been rendered

inoperative by efflux of time.

5. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to run

his fair price shop in accordance with law.

6. Observation made in Khemraj Darji (supra) shall be mutatis

mutandis applicable in the present case as well.

7. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J 80-Sanjay/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)