Allowed

Smt. Anchhi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2022CW/1132/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging a suspension of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop license. Holding that suspension beyond 90 days under the 1976 Order is impermissible, the court declared the pending suspension null and void and directed permission to resume business while allowing the inquiry to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of license declared null; petitioner directed to be permitted to operate Fair Price Shop; inquiry to continue.

Smt. Anchhi Devi Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1132/2022

¶3

Smt. Anchhi Devi W/o Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Rama Panchayat Pitha Ka Kheda, Tehsil Raipur, District Bhilwara.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The District Supply Officer, Bhilwara.

¶8

Enforcement Inspector, Raipur District Bhilwara.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shree Kant Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Jain, through VC

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

14/02/2022

¶14

Challenging the order dated 19.03.2019, whereby

¶15

petitioner’s license to carry on fair price shop has been suspended, Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that a period of 90 days has since elapsed, hence the same has become inoperative. Learned counsel submits that notwithstanding clear legal position, the respondent No.2 has neither revoked the suspension order nor has he permitted the petitioner to carry on his fair price shop.

¶16

Inviting Court’s attention towards Order 8(2) of Rajasthan Foodgrains & Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Order of 1976”) learned counsel contends that a suspension can be continued only for a

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-1132/2022]

¶19

period of 90 days, whereafter if the inquiry is not completed, the

¶20

competent authority is required to revoke the suspension.

¶21

Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that true it is, that a period of more than 90 days has since elapsed, 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 completion of the inquiry. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of sub-clause (2) of Order 8 of the Order of 1976, this Court is of the clear opinion that suspension of petitioner’s license beyond the period of 90 days is impermissible. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 6. The suspension of petitioner’s authorization is hereby declared null and inoperative as a period of 90 days from 19.03.2019 has since passed.

¶22

The respondents are directed to forthwith permit the petitioner to carry on her fair price shop, pursuant to the authorization issued in her favour. 8. The respondents shall, however, be free to complete the inquiry as initiated against the petitioner, in accordance with law. 9. 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 while handing over the charge to the petitioner.

¶23

While handing over the shop as directed above, the District Supply Officer shall intimate the petitioner about the next date of

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-1132/2022]

¶26

hearing, on which date the petitioner will file his reply, if not already filed.

¶27

Therefore he will appear before the District Supply Officer on the dated fixed, who shall pass a final order in accordance with law.

¶28

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

¶29

Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(DINESH MEHTA),J 31-pooja/-

Smt. Anchhi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anchhi Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Garoda Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Paliwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sunita Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Manjoor Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kumawat Samaj Vs State of Rajasthan

Pyar Chand Vs Balmukund @ Pappu