Allowed

Narpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Oct 2022CW/5587/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a suspension order for his fair price shop. The court held that under the relevant Rajasthan order, such suspension automatically ceases after 90 days. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be allowed to operate the shop, subject to a future inquiry for irregularities.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned suspension order and direct the respondent department to allow the petitioner to operate the fair price shop.

Narpat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5587/2020

¶3

Narpat Singh S/o Late Shri Kamal Singh, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Dav, Panchayat Samiti Sam, Distt. Jaisalmer.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Rajasthan State Food And Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶7

District Supply Officer, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶8

Enforcement Inspector, District Supply Officer, Jaisalmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Ballani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinehs Kumar Jain Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶12

Order

¶13

13/10/2022

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 06.04.2020 passed by the District Supply Officer, Jaisalmer, whereby the license of the petitioner for running fair price shop has been suspended.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Food Grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976, it is clear that a suspension order comes to an end automatically after expiry of 90 days. It is submitted that even after expiry of 90 days, the respondents have not allowed the petitioner to operate the fair price shop and, therefore, he has approached this Court.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-5587/2020]

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petition, however, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that the respondents cannot suspend license of fair price shop for more than 90 days.

¶19

In such circumstance, when the suspension order comes to an end automatically after expiry of 90 days, the impugned order dated 06.04.2020 is hereby set aside.

¶20

The respondent-department is directed to allow the petitioner to operate fair price shop in accordance with law. However, the respondent-department is free to initiate inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law for the alleged irregularities.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

Stay petition is also disposed.

¶23

The application (Inward No.1/22) preferred on behalf of applicant – Savan Khan for being impleaded as party respondent in this writ petition is also disposed of.

¶24

Ordered accordingly.

¶25

48-Arun/-

Narpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narpat Singh 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

Shishupal Singh Vs State

Babita Vs State

Mohsin Khan @ Kallu Khan Vs State

Pushkar Raj Ameta Vs Union of India

Sarvashri Surya Associates Vs State of Rajasthan

Himmat Singh Shekhawat Vs State of Rajasthan