IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Murarilal Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner Food, Civil Supplies, And Consumer and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17362 of 2017
Decided On : 18-04-2023
FAIR PRICE SHOP LICENCE - REVISION PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - COMPLAINANT - SECTION 22A OF RAJASTHAN FOODGRAINS & OTHER ESSENTIAL ARTICLES (REGULATIONS OF DISTRIBUTION) ORDER, 1976 - A complainant has no right to file a revision petition under section 22A of the Rajasthan Foodgrains & Other Essential Articles (Regulations of Distribution) Order, 1976 (the Order of 1976).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a fair price shop license holder, challenged the order of the revisional court that allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant and set aside the order of the District Collector restoring the petitioner's license. The petitioner argued that the complainant had no right to file a revision petition and that the cancellation of his license was illegal and unjustified.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a complainant has no right to file a revision petition under section 22A of the Order of 1976. The court also found that the District Collector had rightly allowed the petitioner's appeal and that there was no fresh evidence to support the allegations against the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether a private person/stranger/complainant has a right to file a revision petition under section 22A of the Order of 1976? 2. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's license was legal and justified?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provision of section 22A of the Order of 1976, which does not explicitly grant the right to file a revision petition to any person. The court also considered the orders of the High Court in similar cases, which held that a complainant is neither a necessary nor a proper party in a matter of challenge to the suspension of a fair price shop license.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the revisional court and the order of the District Supply Officer, and directed the respondents to supply food articles to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. By filing this writ petition the petitioner has made challenge to the order dated 10.5.2017 passed by the respondent No.2- the Court of Addl. Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.7- Pankhilal Meena and set aside the order dated 5.10.2016 passed by the Court of District Collector, Sawai Madhopur. The petitioner has further made a challenge to the order dated 02.06.2017 issued by the Office of the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, by which the licence of the petitioner for fair price shop for 1/2 part of Gram Panchayat Barnala, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur, was cancelled afresh.
2. The facts emerging from the pleadings are that the petitioner is the licence-holder of fair price shop for 1/2 part of Gram Panchayat Barnala, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur. The respondent No.7- Pankhilal Meena made some complaints against the petitioner of irregularities including non-opening of the shop, non-distribution of the prescribed quantity of essential commodities, making forged entry in the family ration cards etc. On the complaint made by the respondent No.7, inquiry was conducted by the Enforcement Inspector, who submitted his reports on 03.09.2015 and 08.09.2015 respectively. Considering the inquiry reports submitted by the Enforcement Inspector, the licence of petitioner's fair price shop was suspended vide order dated 10.09.2015. The petitioner against the order of suspension of licence of his fair price shop, preferred a writ petition bearing SBCWP No.18682/2015, which was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2015 holding that the order of suspension of the licence of the petitioner's shop on 10.09.2015 shall not be operative subsequent to 90 days of its issue in view of the provisions of Regulation 8(2) of the Order of 1976. However, the respondents therein were allowed liberty to proceed with the inquiry against the petitioner qua any breach of the conditions of the authorisation to run the fair price shop. In the meantime, the licence of the petitioner for fair price shop was cancelled vide order dated 09.12.2015 issued by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Food), Bamanwas.
3. The petitioner challenged the order dated 9.12.2015 by filing appeal No.98/2016 under section 22 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains & Other Essential Articles (Regulations of Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short 'the Order of 1976') before the Court of the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur with the plea that the order dated 09.12.2015 has been passed in the back date by the respondent No.5, without service of show-cause notice upon him and without holding a proper inquiry.
4. The Court of District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, on consideration of arguments of both the sides allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 05.10.2016 and set aside the order dated 09.12.2015.
5. Respondent No.7- Pankhilal Meena, aggrieved with the judgment dated 05.10.2016 filed a revision petition under section 22A of the Order of 1976 before the Court of Addl. Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short 'the revisional court'). The revision petition was filed on the ground that the judgment of the District Collector is illegal and unjustified and the Court of District Collector, Bamanwas, has committed a grave error in setting aside the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Supply), Bamanwas. It was also stated that the order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Court of the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, is not speaking order.
6. The revisional court vide judgment dated 10.05.2017 allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent No.7/ complainant and further set aside the judgment dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Court of the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur and upheld the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Supply), Bamanwas.
7. After the decision of the revision
A complainant has no right to file a revision petition under section 22A of the Rajasthan Foodgrains & Other Essential Articles (Regulations of Distribution) Order, 1976.
The court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner’s fair price shop license due to violations of the Essential Commodities Act, confirming the necessity of a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The cancellation of a fair-price-shop license is invalid if the authority that conducted the inquiry also decides the merits of the case, violating procedural requirements.
Fair price shop licenses cannot be cancelled without conducting a proper inquiry and adhering to principles of natural justice, including providing a show cause notice and opportunity to respond.
The existence of an alternative statutory remedy precludes the court from intervening under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for authorities to remand a matter for reconsideration after setting aside orders on technical grounds.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.