Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1873 (RAJ)

Gangaram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2017-08-21

M.N.BHANDARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. A copy of the writ petition was served in advance on the counsel for department Shri VD Gathala and, accordingly, he is appearing in this writ petition. 2. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 23rd June, 2017, whereby, authorisation of fair price shop has been cancelled. 3. The writ petition has been filed without availing remedy on the ground that impugned order has been passed without following the provisions of law and otherwise action of the respondents is malacious. 4. It is submitted that authorisation of fair price shop was suspended vide order dated 15th May, 2017. It is based on the so-called report given by the committee on 13th May, 2017. The committees were constituted vide order dated 12th May, 2017 but the order was despatched on 15th May, 2017 and received by the committees on 16th May, 2017 and onwards upto 18th May, 2017. The inspection teams could not have made the report on 13th May, 2017 i.e. two to three days prior to communication of the order of its constitution. The order of suspension was based on the report of the inspection teams, whereas, report could not have been given before communication of the constitution of the inspection teams, thus in an illegal manner, authorisation of fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended. 5. The action of the respondents did not end here because subsequently the authorisation of fair price shop was cancelled vide order dated 23rd June, 2017 in reference to so-called report of the inspection teams and without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The cancellation of authorisation of fair price shop could not have been made based on so-called report of the inspection teams. 6. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the writ petitions. He submits that inspection teams were constituted vide the order dated 12th May, 2017 though the order was despatched on 15th May, 2017 but telephonically, the inspection teams were asked to make inspection and submit the report. The report was, accordingly, submitted on 13th May, 2017 itself. Based on the report, orders of suspension and termination have been passed. It was after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner thus impugned order may not be interfered. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The report was, accordingly, submitted on 13th May, 2017 itself. Based on the report, orders of suspension and termination have been passed. It was after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner thus impugned order may not be interfered. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The order dated 23rd June, 2017 has been challenged, whereby, authorisation of fair price shop of the petitioner has been cancelled. The cancellation is in reference to report of the inspection teams so constituted vide the order dated 12th May, 2017. It is, however, not in dispute that inspection teams were informed about its constitution on 15th May, 2017 till 18th May, 2017. According to the petitioner, information about constitution of the inspection teams was given between 16th to 18th May, 2017 thus report could not have been submitted on 13th May, 2017. According to the respondents, immediately on constitution of the inspection teams on 12th May, 2017, it was conveyed to them on telephone with a direction to make inspection and accordingly, report was submitted on 13th May, 2017. 9. I find nothing on record to show that on constitution of the inspection teams vide order dated 12th May, 2017, information was sent to the teams either on the same day or next day i.e. 13th May, 2017. The record called from the respondent-department shows despatch of the order of constitution of the inspection teams on 15th May, 2017 onwards. As per the record, the information about constitution of the inspection teams was conveyed on 15th May, 2017 till 18th May, 2017. There is nothing on record to show information about constitution of committees on telephone. 10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, it could not be clarified as to how the inspection was made on 13th May, 2017 when the order for constitution of teams was received on 15th May, 2017 onwards and the impugned order is in reference to the report of the inspection teams. The orders are otherwise almost verbatim the same thus the respondents have acted in cyclostyle manner. It seems to be due to visit of the Chief Minister between 11th May, 2017 to 13th May, 2017. While recording the impugned order in the same language, quantity of the foodgrain, kerosene, etc. has been mentioned individually. The orders are otherwise almost verbatim the same thus the respondents have acted in cyclostyle manner. It seems to be due to visit of the Chief Minister between 11th May, 2017 to 13th May, 2017. While recording the impugned order in the same language, quantity of the foodgrain, kerosene, etc. has been mentioned individually. The order of suspension was passed on 15th May, 2017 and cancellation of authorisation of fair price shop was made almost in a period of one month after notice for hearing. The termination of the authorisation of fair price shop is, however, in reference to the report of the inspection teams. The report of inspection is prior to receipt of the information of its constitution thus cannot be relied or be trusted. 11. In view of the above and under such circumstances, the writ petition was entertained without directing the petitioner to seek alternative remedy. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside, however, it is with liberty to the respondents to make inspection afresh and if any deficiency is found then to take action as per law. This order would not come in their way for the aforesaid. 12. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.