Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
Smt Rukmani Devi Choudhary - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 11373 and 11420 of 2020
Decided On : 02-03-2023
Remedy - Fair Price Shop License - Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 - The court emphasized the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Clause 22, which precluded interference under Article 226.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the cancellation of their fair price shop licenses, arguing that the cancellation was illegal, especially since the licenses were previously suspended and an interim order was in place.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation order was appealable under Clause 22 of the Order of 1976, and since an alternative remedy was available, the writ petitions were not maintainable.
Issues: Whether the court could interfere with the cancellation of the fair price shop license given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a statutory alternative remedy exists, it should be pursued before seeking intervention under Article 226, unless the order is without jurisdiction.
Result: The writ petitions were dismissed, allowing the petitioners to appeal to the competent authority.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11373/2020
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
6. 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
7. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
8. 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.
9. 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 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 invokin
The existence of an alternative statutory remedy precludes the court from intervening under Article 226 of the Constitution.
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 cancellation of a fair price shop licence without granting a personal hearing violates the principle of natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution.
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.
Suspension of fair price shop license was arbitrary as it violated prescribed procedures, warranting judicial intervention despite alternative remedies.
License of fair price shop was cancelled only on the ground of lodging of FIR as well as pendency of criminal case. Apart from that there is no allegation with regard to black marketing or misuse of ....
Licenses for fair price shops cannot be cancelled solely based on the lodging of an FIR against the licensee; due process and inquiry must be followed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
