Allowed

Bherulal Meena v. Food Commissioner Food Civil Ors.

Rajasthan HC26 Nov 2025CW/3898/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders canceling the petitioner's fair price shop license for violating natural justice. The court found the grounds for cancellation differed from those in the show cause notice, and an enquiry report was not supplied, denying a fair hearing.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 24.03.2008, 23.12.2008, and 01.06.2012 quashed; respondents granted liberty to pass fresh order after proper hearing.

Bherulal Meena Vs Food Commissioner Food Civil Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:47922]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3898/2015

¶4

Bherulal Meena S/o Shri Pema Ji, aged about 50 years, R/o Village- Bilakh Kalawat, Gram Panchayat- Gadawat Gorimba, Tehsil- Rishbhadev, District - Udaipur Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

District Collector, Udaipur. 3. District Supply Officer, Udaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Keshav Agarwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Parshant Vijay for
	Mr.	Lokendra Singh Rao

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

26/11/2025

¶14

Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court in order to challenge the order dated 24.03.2008 issued by the District Supply Officer, Udaipur whereby, licence of the petitioner issued under the provisions of Rajasthan Food Grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1976 for running a fair price shop has been canceled. He has also challenged the order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority as well as order dated 01.06.2012 passed by the Revisional Authority dismissing his appeal and revision petitions.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation order dated 24.03.2008 gives a reference of show

[2025:RJ-JP:47922]

[CW-3898/2015]

(2 of 5)

cause notice dated 16.11.2007. However, in the show cause notice dated 16.11.2007, the petitioner was directed to explain the deficiencies/shortcomings mentioned in the notice, which were altogether different than the reasons, which have been assigned in the order of cancellation dated 24.03.2008.

¶20

It is submitted that the deficiencies/irregularities pointed out in the notice are as under:

¶21

" 1- miHkksDrkvksa dks le; ij [kk|kUu dk miyC/k ugha djok;k tk jgk gSA oDr tkap fnukad 1-11-07 dks nqdku can ikbZ xbZA

¶22

2- Fkksd foØsrk jkT; la?k ls fnukad 11-10-07 dks xsgwa o pkoy mBk;k x;k ijarq u rks miHkksDrkvksa dks forj.k fd;k vkSj u gh xksnke esa eky igqapkA

¶23

3- izkIr [kk|kUu dk lrdZrk lfefr ds lnL;ksa ls HkkSfrd lR;kiu ugha djok;k x;kA "

¶24

Whereas, the reasons assigned for canceling the licence by the District supply officer are as under:

¶25

" bl izdkj Mhyj ds }kjk ekg vDVwcj 07 dk Fkksd foØsrk jktl la?k mn;iqj ls izkIr [kk|kUu rFkk dsjkslhu Fkksd foØsrk esa 'kaHkq ,.M dEiuh ls izkIr 1100 yh0 dsjkslhu Hkh forj.k ugha djuk lkjs [kk|kUu o dsjkslhu dks [kqys cktkj esa csp dj Hkkjh equkQk dekuk fl) gksrk gSA bl izdkj Mhyj ds }kjk [kk|kUu / dsjkslhu forj.k esa xaHkhj vfu;ferrk;s dh tkdj mls tkjh izkf/kdkj i= dh fofHkUu 'krksZa] dk mYya?ku djuk ik;k gSA ,sls Mhyj dk izkf/kdkj i= miHkksDrkvksa ds fgr esa fujLr djuk mfpr gSA

¶26

vr% Mhyj }kjk nq:i;ksx fd;s x;s chih,y xsgw¡ 28 fDoUVy ,ih,y xsgw¡ nj ls vUrj jkf'k 5880 /- :i;s] chih,y pkoy 14 fDoUVy ,ih,y pkoy vUrj jkf'k 3780 /- ] vUR;ksn; xsgw¡ 27 fDoUVy dh ,ih,y nj vUrj jkf'k 12960 /- :i;s o ,ih,y xsgw¡ 10 fDoUVy dk 6800 /- :i;s ,oa dsjkslhu 1100 yhVj dk 11000 /- :i;s dqofy;k

[2025:RJ-JP:47922]

[CW-3898/2015]

(3 of 5)

jkf'k 40420 /- pkfyl gtkj pkj lkS chl :i;s olwy dh tkrh gSA lkFk gh [kk|kUu dk xaHkhj nq:i;ksx gksus ls lEiw.kZ izfrHkwfr tIr ljdkj dh tkdj izkf/kdkj i= la[;k 476 / 89 rqjUr izHkko ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA "

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits it is clear that notice earlier issued to the petitioner was totally incomplete and fair opportunity of hearing has not been provided to him. The competent authority cannot cancel the licence beyond the reasons as provided in show cause notice dated 16.11.2007. It is also submitted that cancellation order dated 24.03.2008 also refers to an enquiry report, which was also not supplied to the petitioner and thus, non-supply of enquiry report would also amount to violation of principle of natural justice.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated 02.11.2011 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narayan Lal Meena Vs. Additional Food Commissioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14936/2011, in which in the similar circumstances, the cancellation order was quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law after granting proper opportunity to the petitioner.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the order dated 24.03.2008 has been passed strictly in accordance with the regulations contained in Order, 1976 and during enquiry, it was found that the petitioner has committed serious irregularities and illegalities, which resultantly entailed cancellation of the licence. The cancellation order has been further examined by the Appellate

[2025:RJ-JP:47922]

[CW-3898/2015]

(4 of 5)

Court and Revisional Court where, no error or illegality has been found in the cancellation order therefore, there is no scope of interference in the instant petition and he prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶39

It is not disputed that the aforesaid Order 1976 prescribed provision to cancel the licence after giving the show cause notice to the concerned dealer. However, provisions for issuance of such notice is not an empty formality and the noticee is required to be apprised of all the reasons/irregularities/illegalities, which may warrant cancellation of his licence. In the instant case, comparison of show cause notice and cancellation order would reflect that the reasons/irregularities/illegalities pointed out in the notice are altogether different than the reasons on which, the licence has been canceled. Thus, it is clear that the principles of natural justice have not been followed properly and the order dated 24.03.2008 has been passed by the District Supply Officer in quite arbitrary and illegal manner. Such patent illegality was also not duly appreciated either by the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority.

¶40

In the case of Narayan Lal Meena (supra) , after examining the similar issues as well as relying upon the earlier judgments, this Court has held that the dealer was not provided proper opportunity to defend himself and was also denied necessary documents, which were required for putting forward

[2025:RJ-JP:47922]

[CW-3898/2015]

(5 of 5)

proper defence by the dealer. Therefore, the cancellation order in the above case was quashed by this Court.

¶45

For the reasons discussed hereinabove, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner and orders dated 24.03.2008, 23.12.2008 & 01.06.2012 are hereby quashed and set-aside.

¶46

However, as the aforesaid orders have been quashed only on account of denial of proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it will not preclude the respondents from passing a fresh order after issuing a fresh show cause notice and providing all the necessary documents as well as after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

¶47

The petition stands allowed with the above directions.

¶48

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶49

NEERU/24

Bherulal Meena v. Food Commissioner Food Civil Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bherulal Meena v. Food Commissioner Food Civil Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazir Ahmed S/O Sh. Gafoor Mistri Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited

Kailash Chand Meena Son of Shri Prabhu Lal Meena Vs Union of India

Prabhu S/O Shri Kesar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal Son of Larte Shri Chitar Vs Ram Chandra Son of Shri Chunni Lal (Died During Suit)

Hindusthan Copper Ltd. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Om Prakash Yadav Vs R F C and Ors.