// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10620/2008 Satya Narayan Gupta S/o Shri Shambhu Dayal Versus State of Rajasthan and Others AND 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10622/2008 Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri Dhuli Lal Versus State of Rajasthan and Others AND 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10623/2008 Murari Lal Gupta S/o Shri Jugal Kishore Versus State of Rajasthan and Others AND 4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10624/2008 Kamlesh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Naval Kishore Versus State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 25.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Keshav Agrawal, Counsel for petitioners in all the writ petitions #### By the Court:- The point involved in the aforesaid four writ petitions is one and same, therefore, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. // 2 // Briefly stated the facts, as mentioned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10620/2008, are that the petitioner preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 1st September, 2008, whereby his licence granted under the provisions of the Rajasthan Foodgrains & Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short, 'the Order of 1976'), has been cancelled. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on earlier occasion the licence of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 20th June, 2006 and this court was pleased to stay the order suspending the licence of the petitioner vide order dated 04.07.2007 in Writ Petition No.4365/2007 filed by petitioner. Now again the respondent has suspended the licences of the petitioners. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. So far as the interim order passed by this Court on 4th July, 2007 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4365/2007 is concerned, it is relevant to mention that this Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that suspension order cannot continue beyond 90 days without giving // 3 // any opportunity of hearing, as required under sub-rule (2) of Clause 8 of the Order of 1976. Earlier the order was passed on 20th June, 2006 and the stay order was passed by this court after about one year i.e. 4th July, 2007. So far as the present case is concerned, the impugned order has been passed on 1st September, 2008 and the question involved in the earlier writ petition is not involved in the present case. Admittedly, the license of the petitioner has been suspended while exercising the powers under Clause 8 of the Order of 1976 and the said order is appealable under Clause 22 of the Order of 1976. Clause 22 of the Order of 1976 is reproduced as under:- “22. Appeal.-(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by any officer under this order may:- (a) if the order is made by any officer lower in rank than the Collector, appeal to the Collector, and (b) if the order is made by the collector, appeal to the Commissioner. (2) No such appeal may be entertained if not preferred within thirty days from the date of receipt of the Order appealed against by the appellant. (3) No order shall be passed under this clause, which adversely affects any person unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. // 4 // (4) Pending the disposal of the appeal, the authority, to whom an appeal has been preferred, may direct that the order against which the appeal is made shall not take effect until the appeal is disposed off.” The above provision makes it clear that the impugned order dated 1st September, 2008 is appealable under Clause 22 of the Order of 1976 and it is settled law that normally the writ petition is not entertained by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution where an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the writ petitioner. In the present matter, the petitioners have alternative and efficacious remedy by way of statutory appeal provided under Clause 22 of the Order of 1976 and, in these circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Consequently, all the above four writ petitions are dismissed only on the ground that the petitioners have alternative and efficacious remedy against the impugned order. Since all the above four writ petitions have been decided by this common order, the office is directed to place a copy of this order in each connected writ petition for ready reference. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//