1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8439/2007 {Ramavtar Saini Versus State of Rajasthan & Others} Date of Order :: 27th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Keshav Agarwal for the petitioner Mr. S.L. Meena, Deputy Government Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: Learned counsel for the respondents has filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacating the ex-parte interim stay order, but on the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The writ petition is admitted. Mr. S.L. Meena, Deputy Government Counsel appears for the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The petitioner was granted license under the provisions of Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976. The District Supply Officer, Tonk cancelled the license vide order dated 31st August, 2007 (Annexure-4). Being 2 aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, but the same has also been dismissed by District Collector, Tonk vide order dated 26th September, 2007. Hence this writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner challenging the aforesaid orders. 5. The learned counsel for both the parties have argued their case at length. 6. I have considered their submissions. The order passed by the appellate authority i.e. District Collector is revisable under Order 22A of the Order of 1976, which is reproduced as under: “22A. Revision. The Commissioner suo moto or on an application, may, call for the record of any case decided by the Collector or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf under the provisions of this Order and if he is satisfied that the Collector or the authorised officer:- (a) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him, or (b) has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him with material irregularity, or (c) has improperly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him: he may pass such orders as he may thinks fit.” 7. The petitioner instead of filing the 3 revision petition under Order 22A approached this Court directly. It is settled law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is normally not invoked where an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy by way of revision petition under Order 22A, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of alternative remedy. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim stay order was passed by this Court on 30th October, 2007, therefore, the said order may be continued during the pendency of revision petition. 9. I have considered the aforesaid submission and in my view it will be appropriate to extend the interim stay order for a period of one month from today and during that period, the petitioner may file revision petition before the revisional authority alongwith an application for stay and may press his stay application there. 10. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 4 The interim stay order passed by this Court dated 30th October, 2007 shall remain in force only for a period of one month. 11. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution filed by the respondents and the same stands disposed of. 12. No costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK