Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 606 (RAJ)

Kashi Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2024-04-16

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 13.03.2024, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the case are that the petitioner is having a Fair Price shop No.809 at Village Nuwan. The shop is in operation since the year 2016. On a surprise inspection, the respondent No.3 found certain infirmities in the operation of the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner. On account of those shortcomings, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.03.2024 and at the same time, the license of the petitioner has been suspended vide order dated 13.03.2024. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the order of suspension dated 13.03.2024. He submits that the infirmities pointed out in Annex.2 dated 13.03.2024 are absolutely false and baseless. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is operating the Fair Price Shop absolutely in accordance with the rules and, therefore, the order of suspension and the Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2024 are not sustainable in the eye of law. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order of suspension and the Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2024 may be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, submits that on a surprise inspection of the shop of the petitioner, the infirmities pointed out in the Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2024 were noticed and, therefore, the license of the petitioner has been suspended till the inquiry is completed by the competent authority on the Show Cause Notice issued to him. Learned counsel further submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature and the respondent-authorities are yet to take final decision on the proceedings of Show Cause Notice initiated on 13.03.2024. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition is premature and the same may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition is premature and the same may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. Since the Show Cause Notice has been issued to the petitioner by the respondents on 13.03.2024 on certain infirmities being observed at the time of surprise inspection, therefore the petitioner is under an obligation to satisfy the respondents by filing appropriate reply mentioning therein that the infirmities/shortcomings noticed in the Show Case Notice dated 13.03.2024 do not exist. For the purpose, the petitioner is required to file a reply and appear before the respondents to place his defence. The order of suspension dated 13.03.2024, during the proceedings, has rightly been passed for which, there is no provision to give opportunity of hearing. 8. In view of the discussions made above, ends of justice will be met if the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file reply to the Show Cause Notice issued to him on 13.03.2024, if not already filed, within a period of 3 days and the respondent No.3 is directed to decide the proceedings undertaken by him in furtherance of the Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2024 within a period of one week thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly.