1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8453/2007 {Ram Pal Sharma 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 (Annexure-4) passed by the District Supply Officer, Tonk and also the order dated 26th September, 2007 passed by the District Collector, Tonk (Annexure-5), The license of the petitioner was cancelled under clause 8 of the Rajasthan Food-grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed. 4. I have examined the impugned orders passed by the District Supply Officer as well 2 as District Collector, Tonk in the light of submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is revisable under clause 22A of the Order of 1976, which reads 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.” 5. In view of above, it is clear that petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of revision petition under clause 22A of the orders of 1976. It is settled law that if the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy, then the writ petition is directly not entertained and only on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed only 3 on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner. 6. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order on the application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution and the same stands disposed of. 7. No order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK