Rajasthan High Court
Smt Rukmani Devi Choudhary W/O ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 March, 2023
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2023/RJJP/003641]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11373/2020
Smt Rukmani Devi Choudhary W/o Shri Hari Mohan Choudhary,
Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Tahatda, Tehsil Bassi,
Distt. Jaipur, Retailer Of Fair Price Shop, Village Tahatda, Tehsil
Bassi, Distt. Jaipur (License No. 184/2012)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Food
And Civil Supply Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. District Supply Officer, Jaipur Second, Jaipur
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11420/2020
Vijay Singh Choudhary S/o Late Shri Hajari Lal Jat, Aged About
54 Years, Resident Of Village Tahatda, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur,
Retailer Of Fair Price Shop, Village Tahatda, Tehsil Bassi, Distt.
Jaipur (License No. 229/2000).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Food
And Civil Supply Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. District Supply Officer, Jaipur Second, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Mohan H/o petitioner in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 11373/2020
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh Gurjar, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment / Order
02/03/2023
[2023/RJJP/003641] (2 of 4) [CW-11373/2020]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11373/2020
Mr. Hari Mohan, husband of the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 11373/2020, present in person, submits that the
licence of fair price shop which was in the name of his wife, has
been illegally cancelled by the respondent vide order dated
07.09.2020. It is also submitted that earlier the licence was
suspended vide order dated 23.01.2020, against which he
preferred Civil Writ Petition No.7827/2020, wherein the High Court
passed an interim order dated 30.07.2020, staying the operation
of suspension of licence of fair price shop. During pendency of the
writ petition and staying the operation of the suspension order, the
respondent could not cancell the fair price shop licence.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the
order dated 07.09.2020, which is under challenge in the present
writ petition is an appealable order. Clause 22 of the Rajasthan
Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution)
Order, 1976 (for short 'Order of 1976') provides for an appeal
before the District Collector against the order of cancellation of fair
price shop and in view of that the petitioner has alternative
efficacious and statutory remedy of appeal before the District
Collector. Therefore the writ petition is not maintainable.
It is well settled law that when a statutory alternative
remedy is available to a person against the order, no interference
could be made in the said order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, except in a case where the order under
challenge is without jurisdiction of the authority passing the order.
In the present case, there is no such argument of petitioner.
[2023/RJJP/003641] (3 of 4) [CW-11373/2020]
Since the petitioner is having alternative efficacious and
statutory remedy of appeal under Clause-22 of Order of 1976, no
interference could be made by this Court invoking the writ
jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before
the competent authority. Issue of delay in filing the appeal shall be
considered sympathetically by the Appellate Authority in
accordance with law.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11420/2020
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
In the instant writ petition it is stated that the licence of fair
price shop in the name of petitioner has been illegally cancelled by
the respondent vide order dated 07.09.2020. Earlier, the licence
was suspended vide order dated 23.01.2020, against which the
petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7823/2020, wherein
the High Court passed an interim order dated 30.07.2020, staying
the operation of suspension of licence of fair price shop. During
pendency of the writ petition and staying the operation of the
suspension order, the respondent could not cancell the fair price
shop licence.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that on the
order dated 07.09.2020, which is under challenge in the present
writ petition is an appealable order. Clause 22 of the Rajasthan
Food Grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of
Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short 'Order of 1976') provides for
an appeal before the District Collector against the order of
[2023/RJJP/003641] (4 of 4) [CW-11373/2020]
cancellation of fair price shop and in view of that the petitioner
has alternative efficacious and statutory remedy of appeal before
the District Collector. Therefore the writ petition is not
maintainable.
It is well settled law that when a statutory alternative
remedy is available to a person against the order, no interference
could be made in the said order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, except in a case where the order under
challenge is without jurisdiction of the authority passing the order.
In the present case, there is no such argument of petitioner.
Since the petitioner is having alternative efficacious and
statutory remedy of appeal under Clause-22 of Order of 1976, no
interference could be made by this Court invoking the writ
jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before
the competent authority. Issue of delay in filing the appeal shall be
considered sympathetically by the Appellate Authority in
accordance with law.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
ARTI SHARMA /70-71
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
