Dismissed

Ramakant Sharma S/O Shri Maliram Sharma v. Additional Food Commissioner

Rajasthan HC28 Nov 2022CW/2883/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the termination of his fair price shop license after failing to maintain stock registers and distributing less kerosene than the authorized quantum due to Sarpanch instructions. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that lower authorities passed reasoned orders finding illegality and the Court cannot act as an appellate body.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition challenging the dismissal of the revision petition and termination of fair price shop license was dismissed with costs.

Ramakant Sharma S/O Shri Maliram Sharma Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2883/2022

¶3

Ramakant Sharma S/o Shri Maliram Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Gram Panchayat- Dariba, Tehsil- Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Additional Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply And Consumer Matters Department, State Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

District Collector, Sikar.

¶8

District Supply Officer, Sikar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Kumar Agarwal. For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶12

Order

¶13

28/11/2022

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner Food, Jaipur whereby the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the District Collector, Sikar was dismissed as well as against the order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the District Supply Officer, Sikar whereby the license of fair price shop of the petitioner was terminated.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is having the license of fair price shop issued by the respondents at Gram Panchayat Dariba Tehsil Neem Ka Thana District Sikar. The District

¶16

(2 of 4) [CW-2883/2022]

¶17

Supply Officer, Sikar issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The Inspector of the Food Department inspected the shop of the petitioner in the month of November, 2014 and it was found that the stock register was not maintained properly and kerosene oil was not distributed to the villagers as per the norms of the Department. The Inspector of Food Department submitted its report to the District Supply Officer, Sikar on 07.11.2014 on the basis of which show cause notice was issued by the District Supply Officer to the petitioner dated 18.11.2014. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice to the District Supply Officer and submitted that admittedly, he has distributed the less kerosene to the villagers as per the directions of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and in the reply the petitioner has admitted his mistake, thereafter, the District Supply Officer, Sikar terminated the license of the petitioner vide order dated 16.02.2015.

¶18

Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2015, the petitioner filed appeal before the District Collector, Sikar which was dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2019, thereafter, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Additional Food Commissioner, Jaipur and the said revision was also dismissed by the Revisional Authority vide its order dated 10.02.2021. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 16.02.2015, 22.04.2019 & 10.02.2021.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Authorities below have not passed the reasoned order. Counsel further submits that he has distributed 2.5 litre kerosene on one ration card instead of 3 litre kerosene on the directions issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Counsel further submits that

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CW-2883/2022]

¶22

reply to the show cause notice was not considered properly by the District Supply Officer while terminating the license of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the stock register has duly been completed by the petitioner after preparing of the Inspection report.

¶23

In support of the contention counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Mohammad Farook Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20944/2017) decided on 16.11.2018 and further relied upon the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Jagat Bhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2007 (2) EFR 144.

¶24

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶25

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad

¶26

Ahmad & Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj & Ors. reported in (2008) 9

¶27

SCC 1 in para No.38, it has been held as under:-

¶28

“Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate Court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior Court or Tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts and inferior Tribunals within the limits of law.”

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

[CW-2883/2022]

¶31

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner regarding passing of non speaking orders by the Authorities below is not acceptable as the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional authority has considered the matter in detail and recorded a finding that the petitioner has committed illegality in not maintaining the stock register at the time of inspection and he has distributed 2.5 litre kerosene on one ration card instead of 3 litre kerosene which was not as per the norms of the Department; secondly, the another argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that he has distributed kerosene as per instructions of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, is also not acceptable as the petitioner has to run the fair price shop as per the norms fixed by the Food Department and not by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and lastly, while exercising the power under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India this court cannot act as an Appellate Court, therefore, in my considered view, it is not a case of exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad Ahmad (supra).

¶32

In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶33

All the pending applications stand dismissed.

¶34

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶35

MG/45

Ramakant Sharma S/O Shri Maliram Sharma v. Additional Food Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Sharma S/O Shri Maliram Sharma v. Additional Food Commissioner

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

Sawhney Electricles Works Vs Rajasthan Housing Board

Ishika Bhashani W/O Shri Johnny Bhashani Vs Sumedilal Jain S/O Laxmichand Jain

Deep Chand Bansal S/O Late Shri Tara Chand Ji Agarwal Vs Jugal Kishore Sharma S/O Shri Vishnu Prasad Sharma

Kailash Narayan Pareek, S/O Late Suraj Narayan Pareek Vs Virendra Kumar Jain, S/O Shree Radhelal Jain

Mushtaq Son of Late Shri Yusuf Vs Shabbu Ahmed Son of Shri Shabbir

Kamlesh Kumar Manubhai Ramoliya Vs Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor