Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SUNIL BENIWAL
Mohammad Salim S/o Kamrudeen – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of fair price shop allotment (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioners' objections to new fair price shops (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents' defense on policy matters (Para 4) |
| 4. previous judgments impacting the case (Para 6) |
| 5. policy decisions vs. vested rights (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. guidelines and executive instructions are not binding (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. political influence and public need assessment (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. flexibility in application of guidelines (Para 19) |
| 9. final ruling on the petition (Para 20) |
| 10. dismissal of the petitions (Para 21) |
ORDER :
1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in the present writ petitions, therefore, the same are being decided by this Court by this common order.
2. The brief facts, as stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13163/2025, are that an advertisement was issued in the year 2000 for allotment of a fair price shop at Ward No.27, Dada Mohalla, Ginani Talab, Nagaur City, which, after delimitation, came to be re-designated as Ward No.28 and subsequently as Ward No.34.
2.1 Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied and was allotted the fair price shop in the year 2000, and since then, he has been operatin
The establishment of fair price shops is a policy decision of the State Government; guidelines are not legally binding rights. Existing license holders cannot claim exclusive operation rights in over....
The establishment of fair price shops is a policy decision by the State, and existing shop holders have no legal rights to oppose new shops based on prior guidelines.
The bifurcation of a fair price shop may be upheld if it is done in accordance with the norms prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 17.09.2007, considering the convenience of the cardholders and the econ....
The court upheld the policy allowing a new Fair Price Shop due to population growth, affirming that the petitioner could retain only 250 rationees as per guidelines.
Harm or the pecuniary loss which would be occasioned to the petitioners cannot be regarded as wrongful in the eye of law because it does not result in an injury to a legal right or a legally protecte....
The court stressed the necessity of transparent and fair processes for licensing Fair Price Shops, affirming that government actions must comply with constitutional principles of equality.
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
