The court confirmed that allotment prioritization must adhere to established criteria, emphasizing the necessity to follow judicial directions in administrative decisions regarding fair price shop allocations.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed against order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure-13) whereby the revision petition as filed by respondent No.4 stood allowed.

2. The facts in brief are that:

(i) Vide notification dated 18.10.2005 (Annexure-6), applications for allotment of fair price shop were invited. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 applied in pursuance to the said notification.

(ii) Vide order dated 25.04.2006 (Annexure-7), the allotment was made in favour of respondent No.4. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority which stood dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2006. Order dated 20.09.2006 was assailed vide a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1601/2007 which stood allowed vide order dated 29.05.2008.

(iii) Order dated 29.05.2008 was put to challenge by respondent No.4 vide D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.602/2008 and the same stood dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2008.

(iv) Vide order dated 29.05.2008, the Court observed and directed as under:

“In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The allotment order dated 25/4/2005 is hereby quashed qua the allotment made in favour of respondent no.4 of fair price shop situated in village Dangawas. The order passed by the appellate authority dated 20/9/2006 is also quashed and matter is remitted to the District collector for reconsidering the candidature of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no.4 under the priority no.1 which is "educated unemployed person". The reconsideration shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then respondent no.4 shall continue to operate fair price shop situated in village Dangawas. No order as to costs.”

(v) In pursuance to the above direction, the District Collector (Supplies), Nagaur passed order dated 25.07.2008 (Annexure-10) whereby it was observed that it is the petitioner who is entitled for the allotment of the shop in question. The District Collector observed that as per the priorities provided in notification dated 07.10.2005, the petitioner being an educated unemployed person and being a member of Scheduled Caste category deserves preference. With the said observation, the petitioner was directed to be allotted the license of fair price shop.

(vi) Order dated 25.07.2008 was put to challenge by respondent No.4 before the revisional authority who vide order dated 30.07.2008 proceeded on to stay the operation of order dated 25.07.2008.

(vii) The said order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the revisional authority was assailed by the petitioner vide a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6360/2008.

(viii) Vide order dated 04.09.2008 (Annex.12) passed in the said writ petition, effect and operation of order dated 30.07.2008 was stayed. The Court while passing the said order specifically observed that allotment order dated 25.04.2006 had already been quashed by the Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1601/2007. Hence, vide order dated 29.05.2008, the revisional authority could not have considered the said allotment to be in existence.

(ix) However, while staying the effect of order dated 30.07.2008, the Court observed that the revisional authority shall be at liberty to decide the appeal finally on merit after examining the record and hearing all the parties concerned.

(x) Vide order impugned dated 17.11.2008, the revisional authority proceeded on to decide the revision petition finally and, while doing so, held as under:

3. It is the above order which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide the order impugned, the revisional authority has again affirmed order dated