Allowed

Omprakash Dayma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2021CW/3354/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition by relying on a coordinate bench decision. It declared a suspension of the petitioner's fair price shop authorization null and inoperative after 90 days passed, directing respondents to permit business while allowing the inquiry to continue.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of petitioner's authorization declared null and inoperative; respondents directed to permit petitioner to carry on fair price shop.

Omprakash Dayma Vs State of Rajasthan — Consumer Protection | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3354/2021

¶3

Omprakash Dayma S/o Shri Ramchandra Dayma, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 7, Dadich Bhawan, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The District Supplies Officer, Nagaur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Surendra Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Rajat Arora.

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

04/03/2021

¶13

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present controversy is covered by the order dated 2.6.2020 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4359/2020 (Ganpat Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), which reads as follows :-

¶15

“Challenging the order dated 21.01.2020, whereby petitioner’s license to carry on fair price shop has been suspended, Mr. Mathur contends that a period of 90 days has since been passed, hence the same has become inoperative. Learned counsel submits that notwithstanding clear legal position, the respondent No.2 has neither

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-3354/2021]

¶18

revoked the suspension order nor has he permitted the petitioner to carry on his fair price shop.

¶19

Inviting Court’s attention towards Order No.8(2) of Rajasthan Food Grains & other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976, learned counsel contends that a suspension can be continued only for a period of 90 days, whereafter if the inquiry is not completed, the competent authority is required to revoke the suspension.

¶20

Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that true it is, that a period of more than 90 days has since been passed, however, the inquiry could not be completed in wake of over-all lock-down, consequent to spread of pandemic COVID-19. He submits that inquiry will soon be completed and appropriate order shall be passed after culmination of the inquiry.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of sub-clause (2) of Order 8 of the Orders of 1976, this Court is of clear opinion that suspension of petitioner’s license beyond the period of 90 days is impermissible.

¶22

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.

¶23

The suspension of petitioner’s authorization is hereby declared null and inoperative as a period of 90 days from 21.01.2020 has since passed.

¶24

The respondents are directed to forthwith permit the petitioner to carry on his fair price shop, pursuant to the authorization issued in his favour.

¶25

The respondents shall, however, be free to complete the inquiry as initiated against the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶26

Needless to observe that if any authorization has been given to any other person, the concerned District Supply Officer shall hand-over the shop to the petitioner.

¶27

The petitioner shall also cooperate with the inquiry and will thereafter be free to take up appropriate remedies available under law, if any order adverse to his rights is passed in furtherance of the inquiry”

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[CW-3354/2021]

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents agrees that the controversy in question is no more res-integra and decided by this Court in the aforesaid order.

¶31

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The suspension of petitioner’s authorization is hereby declared null and inoperative as a period of 90 days from 15.07.2020 has since passed. The respondents are directed to forthwith permit the petitioner to carry on his fair price shop, pursuant to the authorization issued in his favour. The respondents shall, however, be free to complete the inquiry as initiated against the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶32

Needless to observe that if any authorization has been given to any other person, the concerned District Supply Officer shall hand-over the shop to the petitioner. The petitioner shall also cooperate with the inquiry and will thereafter be free to take up appropriate remedies available under law, if any order adverse to his rights is passed in furtherance of the inquiry.

¶33

Stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶34

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶35

161-SPhophaliya/Jitender/-

Omprakash Dayma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash Dayma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar @ Basant Kumar Vs State

M/S. Manohar Lal and Sons Vs the Asst. Commissioner, State Commercial Taxes

Leeladhar Meghwal Vs the Asst. Commissioner State Commercial Taxes

Tushar Tiwari Vs the Registrar, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnana Raj. Ayurvedic University

Pawan Kumar Vs Appellate Rent Tribunal

Pankhi Vs State of Rajsthan