[2026:RJ-JD:14737]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16506/2023 Mahipal Jain S/o Shiv Lal Jain, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Fair Price Shop No.2, Salumber, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. District Supply Officer II, Udaipur.

3. District Collector, Udaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nidhi Singhvi, Ms. Rakhi Choudhary for Mr. Deelip Kawadia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samir Shrimali, AGC Mr. Nitesh Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

01/04/2026

1. By means of filing instant Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of High Court to assail the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the District Supply Officer II, Udaipur, cancelling his license to run a Fair Price Shop, finding violation to Condition Nos.2, 9, 11 & 17 (c) of the Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short "Order, 1976").

2. At the outset, counsel for respondents has raised a preliminary objection that against the order impugned, statutory remedy of appeal under Clause 22 of the Order 1976 is available before the Authority and petitioner without availing that remedy of appeal has invoked writ jurisdiction of High Court, which may not be entertained.

3. In counter to above objection, counsel for petitioner pointed out that the order impugned has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, hence, there is a gross violation of Principle of Natural Justice and in that scenario, the jurisdiction of writ Court can be invoked by the petitioner. To buttress her contention, reliance has been placed on the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5381/2020 : Lamps Kotada Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., wherein the order of District Supply Officer was quashed for the reason that same was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

4. Having considered the rival submissions of counsel for both parties and from perusal of the record including the order impugned dated 25.04.2022, it has transpired that before passing the impugned order dated 25.04.2022, petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 09.04.2021, giving an opportunity to file reply. There is a clear reference of serving of such notice upon petitioner in the impugned order also. Counsel for petitioner too does not dispute about receipt of such notice, but states at bar that this notice was issued before suspending the license of petitioner. The show cause notice dated 09.04.2021 is available on record as Annexure-3.

5. A perusal of notice clearly shows that an opportunity of hearing to petitioner before cancellation of his license for Fair Price Shop was given, but petitioner has not availed that remedy.

6. It is true that during the process of cancellation, license of petitioner was suspended vide order dated 09.04.2021, but, notice dated 09.04.2021 may not be considered for giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner before suspension of his license. Otherwise also, for suspension of license of Fair Price Shop, no notice or pre-

hearing is required to be given.

In that view of the matter, the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Lamps Kotada (supra), does not support the case of petitioner.

Indisputably, petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal against the order dated 25.04.2022, which has not been availed by him.

7. On merits as well, this Court finds that the order of cancellation of license has been passed taking into consideration the report of inquiry that petitioner committed illegality/ irregularity in distributing the commodity to the eligible persons and committed fraud.

8. As a result, this Court is not inclined to interefere with the impugned