SBCWP NO.3747/2009. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3747/2009. Tayab Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- April 15, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Azad Ahmed for the petitioner. ****** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10/4/2006 passed by respondent No.3, the District Supply Officer Bharatpur cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner, order of respondent No.2, the District Collector Bharatpur dated 7/11/2006 dismissing appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of DSO Bharatpur and order dated 18/12/2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Department by which revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid two orders was dismissed. SBCWP NO.3747/2009. 2 2) Shri Azad Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was absolutely no enquiry against the petitioner and that petitioner has been unduly harassed at the instance of the Sarpanch of the village and his supporters. It is submitted that there are in all 775 ration card holders to whom petitioner is distributing the essential food grains from his fair price shop and with respect to frivolous complaints, such a severe penalty of cancellation of license to run the fair price shop could not be inflicted upon the petitioner. It is argued that earlier also, license of the petitioner was suspended and in that enquiry, notice was issued to the petitioner but the matter was ultimately dropped. Learned counsel submitted that Sarpanch of village Nasim Firdos was against the petitioner and it was at her instance that the impugned action has been taken. District Collector Bharatpur dismissed the appeal as time barred. Learned Additional Commissioner has erred in law in not appreciating that there was no complaint against petitioner for violation of any condition of license and there was also no complaint against him of black-marketing of ration items. No enquiry as such was conducted, no criminal case or first information report was ever SBCWP NO.3747/2009. 3 registered against the petitioner. Petitioner was distributing the essential commodities meant for the Below Poverty Line (BPL) Ration Card holders and 680 cards were such on which only Kerosene was supplied. 3) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the documents forming part of the record, I find that the District Supply Officer Bharatpur has passed a detailed and comprehensive order against the petitioner holding that petitioner was running the fair price shop contrary to Section 6 of the Rajasthan Foodgrain and other Essential Commodities Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976. Upon complaint, he enquired into the matter and found that petitioner was found indulging in irregular distribution of foodgrain and other essential commodities articles to the ration card holders. He did not distribute the Wheat of Antyodaya Card Scheme after March 2004 whereas forged entries to this effect were made in the distribution register at pages no.8 to 13. There were also forged entries regarding supply of Kerosene to the ration card holders, which, in fact was not supplied to the card holders. Previously also, license of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 20/9/2004 SBCWP NO.3747/2009. 4 which was revoked on 19/10/2004. Petitioner was given show cause notice on 26/10/2004 to which, petitioner submitted reply on 9/11/2004. He was again issued notice to show cause on 7/12/2005 which petitioner replied on 24/12/2005. On being found both the replies dated 9/11/2004 24/12/2005, not satisfactory, licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the order impugned in this writ petition on 10/4/2006. 4) Even though the District Collector Bharatpur dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay but the Additional Commissioner, respondent No.1 has considered the matter on merits. 5) In view of nature of allegations against the petitioner, petitioner has rightly been dealt with in the matter. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil