Quashed

Devnarayan Gurjar S/O Shri Ramphool Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Nov 2024CW/5383/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment considers a writ petition against the cancellation of a petitioner's selection for a fair price shop allotment. The High Court quashed the impugned orders passed without notice or hearing, finding a violation of natural justice, and remitted the matter for a de novo decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 16/11/2017 and 17/11/2017 are quashed and the matter is remitted to the District Supply Officer for reconsideration after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Devnarayan Gurjar S/O Shri Ramphool Gurjar Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5383/2019

¶3

Devnarayan Gurjar S/o Shri Ramphool Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Lali, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supply And Consumer Matters Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

District Collector (Supply), Jaipur

¶8

District Supply Officer, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur.

¶9

Kanti Prakash Pareek S/o Shri Suresh Chand Pareek, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Lali, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Kumar Agrawal with Mr. Sonu Kumar

¶12

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta Mr. Prashant Vijay for Mr. Lokendra Singh Rao

¶13

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

21/11/2024

¶16

The instant writ petition has been preferred against the order-sheet dated 16/17.11.2017 by which the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner for allotment of the fair price shop has been cancelled.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.03.2015, the petitioner participated in the process for allotment of fair price shops in the Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur and

¶18

[CW-5383/2019]

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

the petitioner was found to be suitable and accordingly, the Committee made a recommendation of selection in favour of the petitioner. Counsel submits that subsequently, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity of hearing, his selection was cancelled by the District Supply Officer with the approval of District Collector vide orders dated 16.11.2017 and 17.11.2017 respectively. Counsel submits that the petitioner was eligible to participate in the allotment process on the basis of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, but later on, the said terms and conditions of the allotment were changed in the midst of selection process and new condition was imposed that the applicant must be a resident of that area, where the allotment was required to be made. Counsel submits that the terms and conditions of initial advertisement cannot be changed after initiation of the allotment process. Counsel submits that the rules of game cannot be changed in the mid of the selection process, as this controversy has already been settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶21

Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. while deciding Civil Appeal No.2634/2023 vide order dated 07.11.2024. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the process of allotment as per the terms of

¶22

[CW-5383/2019]

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

the allotment conditions, issued by the respondentDepartment on 17.03.2016. Counsel submits that as per the terms and conditions, the applicant must be a resident of that particular area wherein the proposed allotment is required to be done. Counsel submits that the process of interview started on 18.04.2016, while the new guidelines regarding the allotment were issued on 17.03.2016, hence, under these circumstances, the judgment relied by the counsel for the petitioner in the case Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) is not applicable in the instant matter as the rules of game were not changed prior to interview, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶25

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would not like to comment upon the controversy involved in the instant writ petition as to whether the petitioner was eligible or not in terms of the conditions of the advertisement and in terms of the subsequent guidelines issued by the respondents. However, this Court finds that the order impugned has been passed against the petitioner, without affording him any opportunity of hearing and without issuing any notice, which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶26

It is settled proposition of law that whenever any adverse order is passed against a person, the authority concerned is expected to afford him an opportunity of hearing after issuing notice to him, but in the instant case,

¶27

[CW-5383/2019]

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

the order impugned has been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶30

In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 16.11.2017 and 17.11.2017 stand quashed and set aside on this count alone. The matter is remitted back to the District Supply Officer to re-consider the matter and decide it afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to all the respective parties, strictly in accordance with law.

¶31

It goes without saying that the order passed by this Court would be complied by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶32

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶34

KuD/86

Devnarayan Gurjar S/O Shri Ramphool Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devnarayan Gurjar S/O Shri Ramphool Gurjar 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

Savitri Devi W/O Shri Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan

Savitri Sharma Daughter of Late Shri Jagannath Sharma Wife of Shri Arun Prasad Vs Union of India

Shri Sekh Naved S/O Shri Sekh Nasim Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Rajhans Pile Foundation Vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Daya Shankar Sharma S/O Late Shri Shambhu Dayal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary

Manoj Kumar Sharma S/O Late Mr. Babulal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan