Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 884 (RAJ)

Mahaveer Kumar Mehta v. State of Rajasthan

2018-04-03

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. Heard and considered the arguments. 2. The petitioner through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court for assailing the order Anx.12 dated 6.11.2017 thereby the fair price shop licence of the petitioner was suspended till further orders. 3. Admitted facts as available on record reveal that initially, on the basis of alleged irregularities the petitioner's licence was suspended by order Anx.2 dated 14.7.2017. Thereafter, on expiry of the period of 90 days from passing of the said order, the District Supply Officer, Bhilwara passed the order Anx.8 dated 17.10.2017 revoking the suspension order after the petitioner deposited the amounts towards the alleged irregularities. Later on, the Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, sought a factual report from the District Supply Officer, Bhilwara in reference to a news paper reporting dated 25.10.2017 published in the Dainik Bhaskar news paper and merely on the basis of such query, the District Supply Officer again passed the order dated 6.11.2017 placing the petitioner's licence under suspension. Shri Shrimali drew the Court's attention to the order Anx.13 dated 18.10.2017 issued by the Government of Rajasthan Food and Supply Department, as per which, any order of suspension passed under clause 8(2) of the Rajasthan Food-grains & Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 has a maximum life span of 90 days and on expiry thereof the same shall come to an automatic end. 4. The contention of Shri Shrimali that this order is in consonance with Rule 8(2) of the Order of 1976 indeed carries force. That apart, the respondents have not been able to justify the subsequent suspension order because the same came to be passed only on the strength of a query made from the District Supply Officer by the Secretary concerned. The order does not indicate any reason whatsoever for which the petitioner's licence was being suspended. 5. In this background and having regard to the entirety of facts as emerging from record, this Court is of the firm opinion that the order impugned Anx.12 dated 6.11.2017 is totally perverse and illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Thus, this writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order Anx.12 dated 6.11.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. Thus, this writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order Anx.12 dated 6.11.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that the competent authority shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order after concluding inquiry being held against the petitioner. 6. Stay petition is also disposed of.