Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 29960
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J
HARENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI KUMWAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 16732 / 2018
The failure to provide information under the RTI Act does not constitute a violation of fair price shop authorization conditions, as these do not explicitly require compliance with RTI requests.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Foodgrain and Other Essential Article (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1976 - Section 22A - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Cancellation of authorization of fair price shop - The petitioner challenged the cancellation of the fair price shop license on grounds of non-compliance with RTI requests, asserting no violation of conditions in the authorization letter. The court found that the conditions did not obligate the petitioner to supply information under the RTI Act, leading to the conclusion that the cancellation was unjustified. (Paras 2, 6, 8, 9)
(B) Fair Price Shop Authorization - Conditions regarding information retention - The court ruled that failure to provide information under the RTI Act does not constitute a violation of the authorization conditions, as they do not explicitly require compliance with RTI requests. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s fair price shop license was canceled due to the failure to supply information under the RTI Act, despite the petitioner arguing that the relevant records were not available and that the time limit for retention had lapsed. (Paras 2, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the cancellation orders, ruling that the petitioner did not violate any conditions of the authorization as per the Order of 1976. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: Whether non-supply of RTI requested information constitutes a violation of the authorization conditions. (Para 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the conditions attached to the fair price shop authorization did not impose an obligation to comply with RTI requests, and thus the cancellation of the license was not justified. (Paras 8, 9)
Result: Writ petition allowed; orders quashed.
Order
02/02/2024
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction as the nature thereof the Hon’ble Court may further be pleased:-
a. To reinstate the authorization(license) of the Fair Price Shop owned by the petitioner by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 02.03.2015, 19.09.2016 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively and the order dated 30.05.2018 issued by the Court of Additional Food Commissioner, Jaipur.
b. Other order which the Hon’ble Court may deem and appropriate in the facts and circumstances in the present case in the favour of the petitioners;
c. The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners.”
2. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impguned order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the District Supply Officer (First), Bharatpur by which the authorization (licence) of fair price shop of the petitioner has been cancelled. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner submitted a revision petition under Section 22A of the Rajasthan Foodgrain and Other Essential Article (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short, “the Order, 1976”) and the same has been rejected vide order dated 19.09.2016. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is running a fair price shop and one Chandrapal Singh submitted an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act of 2005”) for getting the information of stock and distribution register pertaining to the months from January, 2012 to December, 2012 with regard to distribution of Kerosene Oil, wheat, etc by the petitioner. Counsel submits that the applications were submitted by said Chandrapal Singh on 21.11.2014, 26.11.2014, 01.12.2014 and 17.12.2014, but since these information were not available with the petitioner, hence, the same could not be supplied. Counsel submits that only on this count alone, the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled by treating the same as violation of condition Nos. 10, 11 and 18 of the conditions of the authorization letter. Counsel submits that the authorization letter bears certain terms and conditions as per clause 3(4) of the Order, 1976 and Form ‘B’. As per Form ‘B’, these terms and conditions are incorporated in the licence when the authorization is issued by the competent authority. Counsel submits that none of these conditions, i.e., condition Nos.10, 11 and 18 covers this aspect that a fair price shopkeeper is entitled to provide the information sought by any informant under the provisions of the Act of 2005. Counsel submits that none of the conditions mentioned in the authorization letter were violated by the petitioner and even then, the respondents have cancelled the authorization (licence) of the petitioner and this fact was overlooked by the District Supply Officer as well as by the Revisional Authority, while passing the impugned orders. Counsel submits that even otherwise the maximum period for retaining the relevant record is one year commencing from one financial year to another financial year, while in the instant case, these applications under the Act of 2005 were submitted by the informant/ applicant Chandrapal Singh for the first time in the month of November, 2014 and the information was sought pertaining to month January, 2012 to December, 2012. Counsel submits that as per the guidelines dated 02.09.2008 issued by the Department, such information cannot be provided, after a lapse of more than one year. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and the orders impugned, passed by the respondents, are liable to be quashed and set aside.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for t
