1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7452/2007 {Om Prakash Vijay Versus State of Rajasthan & Others} Date of Order :: 22nd September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Keshav Agarwal for the petitioner Mr. Shiv Lal Meena, Deputy Government Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Shiv Lal Meena, Deputy Government Counsel appears for the respondents 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 31st August, 2007 passed by the District Supply Officer, Tonk, whereby license of the petitioner has been cancelled and security amount has been forfeited under clause 8 of the Rajasthan Food- grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976. 4. I have examined the impugned order passed by the District Supply Officer in the light of submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly the impugned order is appealable under clause 22 of the Order of 2 1976. Clause 22 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) 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.” 5. In view of above, it is clear that impugned order is appealable and petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of statutory appeal, as mentioned above. It is settled law that normally this Court does not interfere in the impugned orders which are appealabe, therefore, only on this ground alone, I am not inclined to admit this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, 3 dismissed on the ground of alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, as mentioned above. 6. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order on the application filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution and the same stands disposed of. 7. The cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK