JUDGMENT : 1. By filing this writ petition the petitioner has made challenge to the order dated 10.5.2017 passed by the respondent No.2- the Court of Addl. Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.7- Pankhilal Meena and set aside the order dated 5.10.2016 passed by the Court of District Collector, Sawai Madhopur. The petitioner has further made a challenge to the order dated 02.06.2017 issued by the Office of the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, by which the licence of the petitioner for fair price shop for 1/2 part of Gram Panchayat Barnala, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur, was cancelled afresh. 2. The facts emerging from the pleadings are that the petitioner is the licence-holder of fair price shop for 1/2 part of Gram Panchayat Barnala, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur. The respondent No.7- Pankhilal Meena made some complaints against the petitioner of irregularities including non-opening of the shop, non-distribution of the prescribed quantity of essential commodities, making forged entry in the family ration cards etc. On the complaint made by the respondent No.7, inquiry was conducted by the Enforcement Inspector, who submitted his reports on 03.09.2015 and 08.09.2015 respectively. Considering the inquiry reports submitted by the Enforcement Inspector, the licence of petitioner's fair price shop was suspended vide order dated 10.09.2015. The petitioner against the order of suspension of licence of his fair price shop, preferred a writ petition bearing SBCWP No.18682/2015, which was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2015 holding that the order of suspension of the licence of the petitioner's shop on 10.09.2015 shall not be operative subsequent to 90 days of its issue in view of the provisions of Regulation 8(2) of the Order of 1976. However, the respondents therein were allowed liberty to proceed with the inquiry against the petitioner qua any breach of the conditions of the authorisation to run the fair price shop. In the meantime, the licence of the petitioner for fair price shop was cancelled vide order dated 09.12.2015 issued by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Food), Bamanwas. 3. However, the respondents therein were allowed liberty to proceed with the inquiry against the petitioner qua any breach of the conditions of the authorisation to run the fair price shop. In the meantime, the licence of the petitioner for fair price shop was cancelled vide order dated 09.12.2015 issued by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Food), Bamanwas. 3. The petitioner challenged the order dated 9.12.2015 by filing appeal No.98/2016 under section 22 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains & Other Essential Articles (Regulations of Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short 'the Order of 1976') before the Court of the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur with the plea that the order dated 09.12.2015 has been passed in the back date by the respondent No.5, without service of show-cause notice upon him and without holding a proper inquiry. 4. The Court of District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, on consideration of arguments of both the sides allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 05.10.2016 and set aside the order dated 09.12.2015. 5. Respondent No.7- Pankhilal Meena, aggrieved with the judgment dated 05.10.2016 filed a revision petition under section 22A of the Order of 1976 before the Court of Addl. Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short 'the revisional court'). The revision petition was filed on the ground that the judgment of the District Collector is illegal and unjustified and the Court of District Collector, Bamanwas, has committed a grave error in setting aside the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Supply), Bamanwas. It was also stated that the order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Court of the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, is not speaking order. 6. The revisional court vide judgment dated 10.05.2017 allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent No.7/ complainant and further set aside the judgment dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Court of the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur and upheld the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Supply), Bamanwas. 7. After the decision of the revision petition, the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, issued an order dated 02.06.2017 by which the licence of the petitioner's fair price shop was cancelled. 8. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2017 has been passed by the revisional court on filing of the revision petition by the respondent No.7 who is said to be the complainant. 8. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2017 has been passed by the revisional court on filing of the revision petition by the respondent No.7 who is said to be the complainant. He submitted that the complainant has no right to file revision petition under section 22A of the Order of 1976. He also submitted that since the revision petition was not maintainable but the revisional court without properly appreciating the legal provisions of law, entertained and allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent No.7/ complainant. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner against the order of suspension of licence of his fair price shop, approached the High Court by filing SBCW P.No. 18682/2015. This Court vide order dated 14.12.2015 while allowing the writ petition of the petitioner restored the licence of the petitioner's fair price shop. When the petitioner approached with the order of the High Court to the respondents authorities for supply of the essential articles, the respondents stated that his licence for fair price shop has already been cancelled on 09.12.2015. Counsel submitted that the respondents have issued the order of cancellation of licence of the petitioner's fair price shop in the back date. He also stated that no order-sheet is there on the record after the date 23.11.2015 in the proceedings related to the order of cancellation of the licence dated 09.12.2015. Counsel submitted that in support of aforesaid allegation i.e. issuance of cancellation of licence, in the back date, a letter No.806 was issued for procuring the documents in regard to the inquiry into the allegations against the petitioner after the order of cancellation of his licence. Counsel also submitted that prior to cancellation of the licence of the petitioner's fair price shop vide order dated 09.12.2015, no show-cause notice was served upon him. Hence, the action of the respondents in cancellation of licence of petitioner's fair price shop is violative of principles of natural justice. Counsel further submitted that the Court of the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, after hearing the submissions of the petitioner and the respondents authorities allowed the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order with a clear finding that the order of cancellation of licence of petitioner's fair price shop is said to have been issued in the back date after the order of the High Court in the writ petition challenging the suspension order. The Court of the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, also observed that there is no fresh evidence on the record to support the allegations against the petitioner. It has also been observed by the Court of the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, that in view of the inquiry reports submitted by the Enforcement Inspector on 03.09.2015 and 08.09.2015 respectively, the licence of the petitioner's fair price shop was placed under suspension vide order dated 10.09.2015, which was interfered by the High Court vide order dated 14.12.2015 and in the meantime, the licence of the petitioner's fair price shop was cancelled on 09.12.2015. The District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, in his order has also observed that after cancellation of licence, there was no occasion to call for another inquiry report on 11.12.2015 and also for issuing the letter dated 12.12.2015 to the Enforcement Inspector for inquiry, which goes to show that the order of cancellation of licence of petitioner's fair price shop has been issued in the back date. Counsel submitted that the order of the revisional court is without jurisdiction, illegal, unjustified and contrary to the facts on the record. 9. Counsel appearing for the respondents State submitted that the revision petition submitted under section 22A of the Order of 1976 by the respondent No.7/ complainant or a third party other than the licence-holder or the State Authorities, is not maintainable. He further submitted that the order of cancellation of licence of the petitioner's fair price shop vide order dated 09.12.2015 is just and proper considering the allegations of irregularities. 10. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 submitted that the petitioner who is a fair price shop licence-holder, has a right to file the revision petition under section 22A of the Order of 1976. He submitted that a petition for revision can be filed by any person or the Commissioner, may also suo-moto call for the record of any case decided by the District Collector and may pass such order as he may thinks fit. He further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner in regard to running of fair price shop were serious in nature, and therefore, cancellation of petitioner's licence for fair price shop was just and proper. 11. Considered the rival submissions made by both the counsels appearing for the respective parties. 12. He further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner in regard to running of fair price shop were serious in nature, and therefore, cancellation of petitioner's licence for fair price shop was just and proper. 11. Considered the rival submissions made by both the counsels appearing for the respective parties. 12. The first issue which emerges for consideration before this Court is 'Whether a private person/ stranger/ complainant, has a right to file revision petition under section 22A of the Order of 1976 ? Counsel appearing for the petitioner while making the submissions submitted that in various cases the High Court while considering the applications of the complainant for impleadment as respondents in the petitions filed by the fair price shop licence holders, did not deem the complainant neither a necessary party nor a proper party. He referred the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in SBCW P.No.3994/2022 (Babulal Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby an application for impleadment on behalf of the complainant was dismissed holding that the complainant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in a matter of challenge to the suspension of fair price shop licence. He also referred the order dated 14.11.2013 passed in SBCWP No.16565/2013 (Ramkhiladi Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), the order dated 19.05.2014 passed in SBCWP No.18384/2012 (Smt. Ratni Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and also the order dated 27.04.2013 passed in SBCWP No. 10432/2012 (Roop Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.). 13. Counsel appearing for the respondents- State submitted that the revision petition on behalf of the complainant under section 22A of the Order of 1976 is not maintainable as the same can be filed by any aggrieved person. He submits that the provision of section 22A provides for revision of the order passed by the District Collector or any other Officer. The Provision of Section 22A of the Order, 1976 reads thus:- "22A. He submits that the provision of section 22A provides for revision of the order passed by the District Collector or any other Officer. The Provision of Section 22A of the Order, 1976 reads thus:- "22A. Revision.-The Commissioner suo moto or on an application, may, call for the record of any case decided by the Collector or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf under the provisions of this Order and if he is satisfied that the Collector or the authorised officer:- (a) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him, or (b) has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him with material irregularity, or (c) has improperly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him; he may pass such orders as he may thinks fit." The above provision of section 22A of the Order of 1976 does not speak that the revision petition can be filed by any person, whereas it is in many of the other enactments. 14. The orders referred by the counsel appearing for the petitioner also clearly show that this Court has not allowed the complainant to interfere in the proceedings between the fair price shop licence-holder and the State Authorities. 15. It is a well settled law that after the complainant is made by the complainant, the lis remains between the persons against whom the complaint is made and the authorities who are supposed to and may have taken action on such complaint. The complainant has no right to interfere in the inquiry and the proceedings in between the licence-holder and the State Authorities. 16. Considering the provision of section 22A of the Order of 1976 in the light of the arguments of both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and the observations made by this Court in the orders referred to above, this Court is of the view that the complainant has no right to file revision petition under section 22A of the Order of 1976. 17. The Revisional Court/ Authority is provided with the powers to revise the orders of the District Collector and other Officers, if he is satisfied that the District Collector or the authorized Officer has exercised his jurisdiction not vested in him or has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him with material irregularity or has improperly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. The Provision of Order of 1976, provides for an appeal under Section 22 of the Order of 1976 to the District Collector, against the order of cancellation of licence of fair price shop. In view of such provision, it cannot be said that the District Collector passed the order in the appeal filed by the petitioner, exercised his jurisdiction not vested in him and further the revisional court has also failed to give the findings that how the District Collector has improperly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. 18. The revisional court has also observed that the District Collector while allowing the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 5.10.2016 has not given its findings in regard to the allegations against the petitioner. 19. On perusal of the order of the District Collector, it is found that he has made detailed observations in regard to the illegality committed in passing the order of cancellation of licence of the petitioner's fair price shop and has also observed that there is no sufficient evidence on the record to support the allegations against the petitioner. 20. The revisional court has also observed that the order of the District Collector is not a speaking order. The District Collector has passed a detailed order specifying each and every thing that how the matter was proceeded for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner's fair price shop as well as the allegations made against the petitioner by the complainant. 21. In view of this Court, the Court of District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, after hearing the submissions of the petitioner and the respondents authorities rightly allowed the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order with a clear finding that the order of cancellation of licence of petitioner's fair price shop is said to have been issued in the back date after the order of the High Court. The Court of the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur also rightly observed that there is no fresh evidence on the record to support the allegations against the petitioner. 22. In view of the detailed discussions made above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 23. As a result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10.05.2017 passed by the Court of Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur is quashed and set aside. 22. In view of the detailed discussions made above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 23. As a result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10.05.2017 passed by the Court of Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur is quashed and set aside. And as a consequence, the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur is also quashed and set aside. 24. The respondents are directed to supply food articles to the petitioner, he being a valid licence-holder of the fair price shop for 1/2 part of Gram Panchayat Barnala, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur. 25. Since the main petition has been allowed, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed off.