// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3189/2008 Kishanlal Gurjar S/o Shri Sharvan Lal Gurjar Versus State of Rajasthan and Others AND 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3055/2008 Bachan Singh S/o Kalyan Singh Versus State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 23.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ravi Kasliwal, Counsel for petitioner in both writ petitions Shri Shiv Lal Meena, Deputy Government Counsel for respondents in both writ petitions #### By the Court:- The point involved in both the writ petitions is common, therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Both the writ petitions are admitted. Shri Shiv Lal Meena, Deputy Government Counsel, appears for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners, in both the writ petitions, were granted license under the // 2 // provisions of the Rajasthan Foodgrains & Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short, 'the Order of 1976). A copy of license has been placed on the record as Annexure-1 in both the writ petitions. The District Supply Officer, Dausa, vide its order dated 30th August, 2007 (Annexure-2 in both the writ petitions) cancelled the license of the petitioners on the basis of directions received by him from the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 23rd August, 2007. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners Kishanlal Gurjar preferred Writ Petition No.7732/2007 and Bachan Singh preferred Writ Petition No.7769/2007, before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court, vide order dated 1st October, 2007, disposed of the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to agitate their grievance in the revision petition before the Food Commissioner under Clause 22-A of the Order of 1976. It was also directed that till the disposal of the revision petition the fair- // 3 // price-shop shall not be allotted to any person. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred revision petitions as per direction of this Court, but the same were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 21st February, 2008 (Annexure-5 in WP No.3189/2008 and Annexure-4 in WP No.3055/2008), hence the petitioners preferred the present writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that from the impugned order dated 30th August, 2007 (Annexure-2) itself it is clear that no notice or an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners as required under sub-clause 2 of clause 8 of the Order of 1976 before cancellation of their license as in the order itself it is mentioned that the licenses are being cancelled as per the directions given by the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Secretary of the Government Food and Civil Supplies Department dated 23rd May, 2007. This point was agitated before the revisional authority also but without considering the same and, on the basis of merits of the case, the revision petitions have been dismissed; he, therefore, contended that the impugned orders passed by // 4 // the licensing authority as well as the revisional authority both may be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned orders and contended that the reasons were assigned for cancellation of the license under the impugned order dated 30th August, 2008. However, he does not dispute that no notice was given to the petitioners before the cancellation of their licenses. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders as well as other documents placed on the record and also the relevant provisions of the Order of 1976. For ready reference, Clause 8 of Order of 1976 is reproduced as under:- “8. Powers to suspend and cancel the authorization.- If an authorization holder or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any provision of this Order and condition of authorization, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) his authorization may be suspended or cancelled by an order in writing of the Collector or any other officer authorized by the State Government and an entry shall be made in his authorization relating to such suspension or cancellation. // 5 // (2) No order of cancellation shall be made under this order unless the authorization holder has been given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation of proceedings of cancellation of authorization, the authorization can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the authorization holder of stating his case.” Sub-clause 2, as reproduced above, makes it clear that the order of cancellation of license shall not be made unless authorization holder has been given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation. Admittedly, neither the notice was given to the petitioners nor reasonable opportunity of stating their case was afforded. In these circumstances, it is clear that the impugned order was passed contrary to sub-clause (2) of Clause 8 of the Order of 1976 and only on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 30th August, 2007 (Annexure-2 in both the writ petitions), passed by the Licensing Authority and dated 21st February, 2008 (Annexure-5 in // 6 // WP No.3189/2008 and Annexure-4 in WP No.3055/2008), passed by the revisional authority, both are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. Since two writ petitions have been decided by this common order, the office is directed to place a copy of this order in another writ petition for ready reference. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//