Dismissed

Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jul 2024CW/9414/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner society challenged an advertisement for allotting a fair price shop. Court held that the shop was validly re-allotted after the petitioner admitted inability to run it and handed over shop to a private dealer. Process completed; petition dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous and merits against. Stay petition disposed of.

Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:27012]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9414/2023

¶4

Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti, Jhadol Through The President, Rameshwar Sharma S/o Sh. Chaturbhuj Sharma, Aged 70 Years, R/o Village Jhadol, Tehsil Raipur, Dist. Bhilwara (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector, Bhilwara.

¶8

District Supply Officer, Bhilwara.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Varda Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Nitesh Mathur,AGC

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶12

Order

¶13

04/07/2024

¶14

The present petition has been preferred aggrieved of the advertisement dated 27.06.2022 issued by the respondent department for allotment of fair price shop.

¶15

At the inception, counsel for the respondents submits that the process in pursuance to the said advertisement has already been completed and the shop has already been allotted to the person as found eligible. Therefore, the present petition has even otherwise rendered infructuous.

¶16

Even on merits, counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly the shop in question was handed over by the petitioner society to a private dealer as it was not in a position to run the same efficiently. Therefore, the shop was rightly treated to be vacant by the department and was put to advertisement.

[2024:RJ-JD:27012]

[CW-9414/2023]

(2 of 3)

Counsel for the petitioner although, does not deny the fact that the shop was handed over to a private dealer but submits that it was because of the unavailability of a proper godown and the staff that the petitioner society handed it over to a private dealer but now, the society is ready and willing to run the same on its own. Counsel further submits that even otherwise the allotment in favour of the petitioner society has till date not been cancelled and without cancelling the same, fresh advertisement could not have been issued.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶22

A bare perusal of the communication dated 03.05.2023 (Annx.R1) as made on behalf of the petitioner society to the competent officer of the department makes it clear that the petitioner society handed over the shop in question to a private dealer. The said communication also makes it clear that the said dealer was not running the shop efficiently and hence, the villagers were facing trouble. Vide the said communication it had been prayed by the petitioner society that regular ration material be supplied to it for running of the fair price shop.

¶23

Meaning thereby, the shop in question which was allotted to the petitioner society was not run by it and admittedly handed over to a private dealer. When the society itself had expressed its inability to run the shop and handed over the charge to some private dealer, it cannot claim to run the shop again. Clause 13 of the authorization letter No.11/1980 as issued to the petitioner society clearly provided that the authority holder shall not be

[2024:RJ-JD:27012]

[CW-9414/2023]

(3 of 3)

entitled to raise any claim so as to continue the allotment as made to him.

¶28

Further, the shop has now been allotted to a new allottee after adopting the complete procedure as prescribed under law. The process having been finalized, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the present writ petition and the same is hence, dismissed .

¶29

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶30

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶31

11-Devanshi/Abhishek-

Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Ratan Chemical Industries Vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Balvir Singh Vs R.F.C.Sriganganagar and Ors.

M/S Vadera Tradin Pvt. Ltd. Vs Employee Provident Fund Organization

Gajendra Singh Rathore Vs Jagdish Coudhary

Arihant Vehicle Fitness Testing Center Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Garg Vs Au Small Finance Bank Limited