Vishana Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

As per the admitted facts emerging from record, the petitioner applied for and was granted authorization to operate a fair price shop in the village

Kedli, Gram Panchayat Bandhra vide order dated 14.7.2016 passed by the Collector (Supplies), Bikaner. It appears that the private respondent No.4

herein was not satisfied with allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner and accordingly, it moved an application to the Collector for revocation of the

authorization granted to the petitioner. The Collector, thereupon proceeded to pass a fresh order (Annex.10) dated 1.2.2018 whereby, the fair price

shop authorization granted to the petitioner was cancelled and the authorization of the same shop was granted to the respondent No.5. The said order

dated 1.2.2018 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the authorization issued for a fair price shop can only be cancelled only on the grounds

mentioned in Regulation 8 of the Control Order of 1976 and that the Collector has no power to review or recall the order of allocation.Â

Shri Bishnoi learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that if at all, the private respondent was aggrieved by allotment of the fair price shop

to the petitioner, then it was required to take recourse of the remedy provided in Regulations 22 and 22A of the Control Order by filing appropriate

application before the State Government. He thus implores the Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and quash the impugned order

which as per him suffers from gross illegality and is without jurisdiction.

Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents have vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Bishnoi. They

contended that the petitioner has available to him, statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Regulation 22A of the Control Order and hence, this

Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction so as to interfere in the impugned order.

Suffice it to say that the objection of availability of remedy of appeal would apply firstly against the private respondent. If at all, the order dated

14.7.2016 whereby the fair price shop in question was allotted to the petitioner was to be questioned, the remedy available to the private respondent

was to file an appeal thereagainst. In the entire scheme of the Control Order of 1976, the power to cancel or suspend the fair price shop authorization

is provided in Regulation 8 of the Control Order as per which, the cancellation of authorization can only be undertaken in case, the holder of

authorization contravenes any provision of the Order or the conditions of authorization. Manifestly, there is no such allegation of the respondents that

the petitioner, after being authorized in this behalf, breached the conditions of the Control Order or the authorization in any manner. Rather the

admitted situation is that despite a valid authorization, the food articles etc. were never supplied to the petitioner.

In this background, this Court feels that the Collector had no justification so as to entertain the application for cancellation of the fair price shop allotted

in favour of the petitioner and thus, the impugned order is grossly without jurisdiction and also amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. Thus, the

objection taken by learned counsel for the respondents regarding availability of statutory remedy of appeal to the petitioner, cannot come in the way of

this Court so as to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction for setting aside the perverse order.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order (Annex.10) dated 1.2.2018 is

hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No.4 if it so desires, is given liberty to file an appeal against the order dated 14.7.2016 with the

appropriate condonation application before the competent authority. The District Supply Officer shall forthwith initiate the supply of foodgrains and

other essential articles to the petitioner as per the guidelines.

The stay application is disposed of.