{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.597/2010 RAM CHANDRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Date of Judgment : 06.10.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Vishal Jangid, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 5475/2008 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 against an order dated 20.11.2008 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and in turn upheld the action of State by which the State has decided to open one more fair price shop in the area in question. 3. So the short question that arises for consideration in this writ-appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ-petition? { 2 } 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal. In our opinion, it has no merit. 5. This is what the learned Single Judge held while dismissing the appellant's writ petition: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was existing license holder of fair- price shop and license was issued in his favour by the District Supply Officer, Hanumangarh. Earlier his license was cancelled but upon appeal before the Food Commissioner, the cancellation order was set aside and license was restored and in pursuance of that, Annexure-P/4 was passed by the District Collector and at present the petitioner is pursuing his business of fair-price shop. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide Annexure-2, the District Collector (supply), Hanumangarh is going to open another fair-price shop whereas he is existing license holder of fair price shop, therefore, no new fair price shop can be opened in view of the fact that he is existing license holder in the area in question. I have perused Annexure-2. Upon perusal it is clear that the Government has decided to grant disturbing the existing license holder. In my opinion such an { 3 } action of the State Government is proper for proper distribution of essential commodities. It is stated in Annexure-2 as well as in the reply by the respondents that they are not disturbing the petitioner's license and thep can pursue his business in view of the fact that appeal was allowed against the cancellation order. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally unfounded that his license for fair price shop will be cancelled or he will not be allowed to pursue his business. In this view of the matter, no order is required in this case as respondent – State is going to open additional fair price shop, which is permissible under the Government decision. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 6. Mere perusal of aforequoted impugned order would go to show that the grievance raised by appellant in the writ petition was not well founded. If he has a fair price shop in one locality, then he cannot be heard to say only on such basis that he enjoys the monopoly in the area and no one can be allowed to have another fair price shop in the area so long as he has the license to run fair price shop in the area. It is the prerogative of State to decide as to how many fair price shop should be opened in a particular area. It cannot be challenged by any one including a person having a license to run a shop in that area. { 4 } 7. It is not in dispute that no adverse action is being taken or was taken by State against the appellant in respect of his shop on the strength of their decision to open one more fair price shop in the same area. This being the admitted position, the appellant had no cause of action to complain against State action to open another fair price shop in the area. 8. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit. It is dismissed limine. ( DINESH MAHESHWARI ),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /Anil/