IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4395/2008 30.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri J.K. Yadav, for the petitioner. Ms. Manju Dave, Addl. Government Advocate. Shri C.L.Saini, for the respondent. The matter comes up on the application submitted by the respondent for vacation of the interim order granted by this court by which the operation of the order Annexures-5 and 6 making the allotment of the fair price shop in favour of the respondent Hardayal Singh has been stayed. Learned counsel for the parties submit that since the contentions and submissions with regard to the application and the writ petition are identical, the writ petition itself may be heard and decided. The dispute in the present writ petition has arisen on account of the order Annexure-2 passed in favour of the petitioner allotting the half area under the fair price shop at village Rosawa Tehsil Fatehpur District Sikar being cancelled and allotment being made in favour of Respondent No.5.The said allotment in favour of the petitioner was made, as the Collector came to the conclusion that the majority of the members of the Advisory Committee ( Uchit Mulya Salahakar Samiti) gave the recommendation in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Collector Annexure-2 the petitioner obtained the license Annexure-3 and started to do business. It appears that the a representation was submitted to the Minister concerned and the Minister passed an order on 9.4.2008 Annexure-5, after going through the relevant record that majority decision was in favour of the respondent Hardayal Singh for allotment of the fair price shop and not in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the order was issued directing the District Supply Officer to make the allotment in favour of the respondent Hardayal Singh. The grievance which was raised by the petitioner firstly is to the effect that the decision taken vide order Annexure-2 allotting the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner was on the basis of the recommendations made by the majority of the members who decided in favour of the petitioner and not in the favour of the respondent Hardayal Singh. It is submitted that allotment is made on the recommendations made by the majority of the members of the allotment committee. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Minister before taking the decision Annexure-5 did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore the said order is violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the respondent Hardayal Singh filed the reply and along with reply has placed on record the minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Committee held on 18.12.2007 as Annexure-R/1, on the basis of the recommendations of which the decision was taken for allotting fair price shop, to the petitioner by the Collector vide order Annexure-2. It may be stated that there were in all three candidates and six members of the advisory committee. The first candidate, Subhash Chandra Sharma received the solitary vote of the Sarpanch. The petitioner Mukti Lal Sharma received two votes of the Tehsildar and the District Supply Officer. The respondent No.5 Hardayal Singh on the other hand received majority of three votes of of the remaining three members. Thus as is seen from the above that the majority of the members of the Advisory Committee voted in favour of the respondent Hardayal Singh and not in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly the District Magistrate cum Collector wrongly held that the majority had made the recommendation in favour of the petitioner Mukti Lal where as, had only received two votes and the majority clearly was in favour of the respondent No.5 Hardayal Singh who received three votes. There being thus a clear error apparent on the face of record the order Annexure-2 dated 25.3.2008 cannot be sustained and this is reflected in the proceedings of the meeting of the advisory committee filed as Annexure-R/1 with the reply. In view of the above, the decision taken by the Minister vide Annexure-5 dated 9.4.2008 holding that the majority had decided and made recommendation in favour of the respondent No.5 Hardayal Singh is duly supported by the record and no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Minister. As fare as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity for hearing is concerned, while it may be true that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity for hearing by the Minister before passing the order, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the document, Annexure-R/1 which are minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Committee, clearly shows that the recommendations made by the majority was not in favour of the petitioner but in favour of the respondent No.5 Hardayal Singh and the Minister has rectified the order issued by the Collector and further even the petitioner has not been able to controvert before this court the majority of the members were not in favour of the respondent No.5 and not in his favour as was erroneously recorded by the Collector in his order Annexure-2. I am of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner and no useful purpose would be served by setting aside the order of Minister also directing him to hear the petitioner as it is amply proved that the majority of the members had voted in favour of the respondent and not in favour of the petitioner. The decision of allotment of fair price shop by calling the applications is for serving the interest of the consumer and quashing the order of the Minister would merely delay the process by ordering a fresh hearing by the Minister after affording an opportunity to the petitioner which would not alter the result in any manner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case this writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The application is also disposed of. The interim order stands vacated. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS