Disposed

Ramdev Meena v. State Food and Civil Suppliesors

Rajasthan HC14 May 2015CW/5897/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four public interest writ petitions challenged treating petitioners' shop holdings as vacant during pending appeals against authorization cancellation. The court held shops cannot be treated vacant pending appeal/revision but directed no new allotment to petitioners while other shops proceed.

What did the court decide?

Shops of petitioners shall not be treated as vacant till appeal/revision is decided; petitioners shall not run shops; advertisements for other shops proceed.

Ramdev Meena Vs State Food and Civil Suppliesors — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5897/2015 + three connected petitions

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5897/2015 Ramdev Meena-Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.-Respondents

¶5

with (2)S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6085/2015 Dashrat Singh-Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.-Respondents with (3)S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6167/2015 Ram Khiladi Meena-Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.-Respondents with (4)S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5079/2015 Prabhulal Meena-Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 14/05/2015 Hon 'ble Ms. J ust ic e Bela M. Trivedi

¶6

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta, Mr.M.S. Raghav for the petitioners Mr. V.D. Gathala, Govt. Counsel, for the respondents

¶7

ORDER

¶8

BY THE COURT :

¶9

In all these petitions, the respective petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned advertisement treating the shop of the petitioners as vacant fair price shop.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta and Mr. M.S. Raghav for the petitioners that in each of the petitions, the District Supply Officer has cancelled the authorization of the respective petitioners to run their fair price shops against which the petitioners have filed either the appeals or the revisions as the case may be before the concerned authorities. Pressing into service, the circular of the respondent No.1 dated 7/4/2010, they submit that no new allotment of fair price shop should be made considering

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5897/2015 + three connected petitions

¶12

¶13

the shop vacant if the concerned fair price shop holder has preferred the appeal or revision against the order of cancellation of authorization. The learned counsel Mr. V.D. Gathala, Govt. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the said position and submits that pending the appeal or revision before the concerned authority, the fair price shop cannot be treated as vacant.

¶14

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that petitioners of each of the petitions have preferred either appeal or the revision before the concerned authority against the order of cancellation of the authorization to run the fair price shop. Since it is not disputed that in view of the circular dated 7/4/2010, such shops cannot be treated as vacant if the revision or appeal is pending against the order of cancellation of authorization, the present petitions deserve to be disposed pf. Accordingly, it is directed that the concerned fair price shops of the petitioners shall not be treated as vacant till their respective appeal/revision is decided by the concerned authority. However, it is clarified that at the same time, the petitioners shall not be entitled to run their respective fair price shops. It is also clarified that the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed ahead with the advertisement in qeustion, in respect of the other fair price shops which are not subject to any appeal or revision.

¶15

With the aforestated clarifications, the present petitions stand disposed of. By this order, the stay applications and other pending applications, if any pending in the petitions also stand dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.

¶16

(Bela M. Trivedi) J .

¶17

“ All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Sanjay Solanki Personal Assistant

¶18

Sanjay Solanki PA

Ramdev Meena v. State Food and Civil Suppliesors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdev Meena v. State Food and Civil Suppliesors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Babu and Ors. Vs Ramchandra andORS

Kedar Prasad Vs Ramotar

Mahesh Kumar Meena Vs State Excise Departmentors

Agarwal Plastic Industries Vs Raj Urban Coop Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Prabhulal Meena Vs State Food and Civil Suppliesors

Laxman Vs Baroda Raj Gramin Bank Anr.