Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 180 (RAJ)

Puni Ram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-15

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dt.02.06.2016 passed by the District Supply Officer, Dausa whereby licence of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop has been cancelled. 2. Mr. D.D. Khandelwal, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was issued licence in the year 2005 for Fair Price Shop at Malwas Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa (Raj). Learned counsel has submitted that due to ailment of the petitioner he had filed an application in the month of February for not running the Fair Price Shop for two months and later on due to serious illness of the petitioner, he was not in a position to submit application of extension of leave. 3. Learned counsel has submitted that due to non filing of application of extension of leave, the respondents have cancelled the licence of the petitioner by impugned order dt.02.06.2016. Learned counsel has submitted that he has filed various order sheets of the proceedings before the District Supply Officer and the said order sheets clearly reveal that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel has also further highlighted other irregularities committed by the respondents like mentioning of wrong name of the petitioner at certain places in the alleged notices. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that till date the shop in question has not been allotted to any other person and it has been attached as an interim measure. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if appropriate opportunity is granted to the petitioner, he is prepared to go back to the District Supply Officer by placing all the facts on record and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Competent Authority may pass a fresh order. 6. Mr. V.D. Gathala, Govt. counsel has submitted that the perusal of the impugned order shows that several notices were sent to the petitioner but he had not replied to such notices. Learned counsel has submitted that even the paper publication was done before the impugned order and as such no illegality can be found with the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Dausa in cancelling the licence of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel has submitted that even the paper publication was done before the impugned order and as such no illegality can be found with the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Dausa in cancelling the licence of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in case this Court is inclined to interfere with the matter, the petitioner may be permitted to avail remedy only by showing proper documents/evidence before the Competent Authority to show justification. 8. Learned counsel has further submitted that the District Supply Officer, Dausa may be directed to afford proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering the entire material he can pass appropriate order as whether licence of the petitioner is to be continued or not. 9. This Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, deems it proper to direct the present petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the District Supply Officer, Dausa. The petitioner is further required to give his explanation and justification for non-continuance of Fair Price Shop and he shall also supply requisite documents of his illness as pleaded by him in the instant petition. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents at this juncture, on instructions, submits that the shop in question was not allotted to any other person till 18.11.2018. 11. This court is constrained to pass the order, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as till date the shop in question has not been allotted on regular basis. 12. This Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the respondents/District Supply Officer, Dausa and the District Supply Officer, Dausa would verify the facts as to whether the shop in question has been allotted to any other person or not. If the shop has not been allotted to another incumbent, the District Supply Officer, Dausa would decide the representation so filed by the petitioner expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order but in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of representation. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.