Ram Khiladi Meena And Ors. @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Anr.

The writ petition preferred by the petitioner is a second round of litigation. Earlier the writ petitioner preferred S.B.C.W.P. 17319/2015 (Ram

Khiladi Meena Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.) wherein the writ petitioner was ousted to prefer appeal under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains

and Other Essential

Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short 'the Order of 1976' hereinafter). He preferred D.B.S.A.W. No.1151/2015 against the

order of the learned Single Judge relegating him to the alternate remedy as noted above. However, the Division Bench disposed off the appeal with

directions to decide the appeal of the appellant-petitioner within 15 days. It was further directed that the Appellate Authority to consider each of the

issues raised by the appellant and pass reasoned and speaking order expeditiously.Â

After the aforesaid decision dated 26.02.2016, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Karauli challenging the decision of the

District Supply Officer dated 27.10.2015 whereby his fair price shop license was cancelled. The District Collector, Karauli vide his order dated

20.07.2016 dismissed the appeal.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies. The Secretary also vide his judgment

dated 26.09.2016, dismissed the revision petition and upheld the orders passed by the District Supply Officer as well as the District Collector. Feeling

aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed challenging all the three orders as noted above.Â

The main gamut of the petition preferred by the petitioner is that the order was passed by the District Supply Officer without following principles of

natural justice and without giving him fair and proper opportunity. It is not the case of the petitioner where no enquiry was conducted nor copy of the

enquiry report ever made available to him. It is further his case that the allegations levelled against the petitioner which based on political reasons

and considerations and factually there was no basis for the allegations and he was not giving any opportunity to cross-examine any of the so called

witnesses and he had not committed any violation of the Order of 1976.Â

In order to buttress the arguments regarding above submissions, learned counsel has taken this Court to the letter (Annexure-2) wherein the petitioner

has mentioned all the candidates having collected ration cards of persons who were Fakir or from minor communities in the village. He also named the

persons who had collected the ration cards and pointed out that these persons were not allowed to collect their ration from the fair price shop.

Learned counsel also points out that the so called show cause notice which was said to have been given to the petitioner as placed before the Division

Bench, would show that the notice dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-7) neither address to the petitioner nor copy of the same has been sent by the District

Supply Officer, Karauli to him. In this regard, he has taken this Court to the other communications which were received by him, wherein there is a

note addressed to him with regard to the cancellation and handing over of fair price shop to the other persons. Learned counsel submits that he had

never been involved in any earlier incident. While assailing the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it is submitted that the so called enquiry which

has been relied upon is noted in the file wherein Deputy Collector, Todabhim had conducted an enquiry and suspended the petitioner’s license

whereafter the District Supply Officer is said to have inspected the fair price shop and at the site had received complaints from the consumers of

serious irregularities in distribution of the rations in the area. Learned counsel submits that none of the two reports have been made available to the

petitioner and this aspect has been completely overlooked both by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority. Thus, there has been

a violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right of earning his livelihood by cancelling his fair price

shop on the basis of the baseless unsupported material as the petitioner was not given any opportunity to answer the same.

Learned counsel submits that the reply was filed on the same day where the District Supply Officer passed the impugned order, thus, there was no

previous notice given to the petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-department, submits that what is required under the rules is to give a show cause notice to the

petitioner and the District Supply Officer had conducted an inspection of a site and was satisfied that there were irregularities in distribution of the

ration cards by the fair price shop dealer and he therefore rightly cancelled the fair price shop license of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that

the show cause notice was received as it is apparent from the reply filed by the respondent wherein the petitioner denied the allegations vide his letter

dated 27.10.2015. It is submitted that while the notice does not address to the petitioner, which was handed over to him as it is apparent from the reply

dated 27.10.2015.

Having heard both the counsels at length, the judgment was reserved.Â

I have carefully gone through the entire record and after having noted the aforesaid contents, I find that the District Supply Officer, Karauli has

passed the order after he has himself conducted inspection on the basis of a complaint received from the consumers in his office. He conducted the

inspection on 07.07.2015 and he mentions of having called of the complainants and the villagers who made the allegations against the fair price shop

owner i.e. the petitioner. Being satisfied with the complaint, he has proceeded to cancel the license of fair price shop of the petitioner in terms of

Section 8(1) of the Order of 1976, in his order he mentioned about enquiry report dated 07.07.2015 i.e. the date when he conducted the inspection.

However, such an enquiry report dated 07.07.2015 is not taken on record. It is to be seen that such report was not placed before the Appellate

Authority nor the same made available to the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record the note sheets relating to the complaint whereto after

noting of 20.04.2015. Further noting on 24.09.2015. Prior to the same notings relating to the so called inspection dt.07.07.2015 has not placed on

record by the respondents. It is also seen that the Appellate Authority who was directed to look each and every aspect of the matter by the Division

Bench has not noted the contents of the complaint made by the petitioner wherein he mentions about the persons who have collected the ration cards

of the persons belonging to the minority communities as well as of SC/ST’s of the village. The complaint made by the petitioner has not been

addressed which is a complete violation of principles of natural justice. The notice dated 16.10.2015 is neither addressed to the petitioner nor it is

seen as to when the same was served on the petitioner.Â

It appears from the record that the letter dated 27.10.2015 written by the petitioner to the District Supply Officer on the day when he passed the

impugned order, however he does not refer to the letter submitted by the petitioner nor he referred to his show cause notice. The Appellate Authority

and the Revisional Authority have also not chosen to examine the case in that prospective as directed by the Court earlier.Â

In the circumstances, the assertion made by the petitioner in the present petition being victimized on account of political consideration/involvement

appears to be correct as it cannot be denied that Officers working in the State Government are affected by the political considerations and their

decisions seem to affect on account of political pressures. Documents are completely ignored. It is noted that the Revisional Authority mentions of the

show cause notice given to the petitioner on 27.10.2015 to which the reply has also been given on 27.10.2015; decision has also been given on the

same day i.e. 27.10.2015. Thus, it is apparent that the approach of the Authorities has been subjective in nature and not objective as required.

Having noted above, this Court is satisfied that the impugned orders cannot be allowed to be sustained and the order dated 27.10.2015 passed by the

District Supply Officer; the order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the District Collector, Karuali and the order dated 26.09.2016 passed by the Revisional

Authority are quashed and set-aside.

The writ petition stand allowed.

It is further made clear that in future if there are complaints made with regard to the petitioner’s functioning of the fair price shop, the same shall

be examined after giving fair and proper opportunity and making available of the documents relating to the complaint to the petitioner and decision

thereon shall be taking after providing copy of the enquiry report.

The petitioner’s fair price shop is restored and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue with the fair price shop at Gram

Panchayat Padampura, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karuli. No costs.