1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.170/2004 (Kamal Kishore & Ors. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) DATE OF JUDGMENT : 26.10.2007 HON'BLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J. Mr.D.K. Gaur, for the petitioners. Mr. O.P. Boob, Addl. G.A., for the State. BY THE COURT: 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the controversy involved in this writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition NO. 1355/2004 (Wholesale – Retail Sellers Union Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 11.07.2007. 2. A coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the writ petition held as under: “Some of the petitions were also filed in the Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur to the same grievance and in those petitions (SBCWP No. 2235/2004 – Sita Ram Agrwal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. And connected matters) decided on 25.08.2006, the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petitions by following order:- “Petitioners are aggrieved by a general notice issued by the concerning 2/3 authorities of the State Government in regard to regularizing wheat distribution system under rural employment scheme. Though shortage and other incidents in distribution have also been included in the commission to be granted to the fair price shop keepers, the claim for further shortage cannot be entertained. Since it is a policy decision of the State Government under a particular scheme and further there is choice of the petitioners to take up the work under the scheme, no interference is called for by this Court in such matters under jurisdiction.” In view of the above decision dated 25.08.2006, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that these writ petitions may also be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's challenge to order dated 25.08.2006 is also in these writ petitions and that issue has not been decided in above decision. In view of that identical writ petitions have been dismissed, therefore, i do not fine any reason to entertain the writ petition and in the light of the said decision, these writ petitions are also deserves to be dismissed. So far as relief for challenge to order dated 25th Nov., 2003 and refund of any amount in pursuance of order dated 25th Nov., 2003 is concerned, for that facts have not come on record that in pursuance of the order dated 25th Nov., 2003, the petitioners have been held liable to pay any amount or amount has been recovered form the members of the petitioner/petitioners. In that view of the matter, in case any demand is raised against the members of the petitioner/petitioners in pursuance of the order dated 25th Nov., 2003, or subsequently during the pendency of the writ petition if any amount has been recovered from the petitioners or the members of the petitioner/petitioners then they may challenge the demand as well as the order dated 25th Nov., 2003 3/3 itself.”`` 3. Learned Addl. G.A. Submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the decision of Jaipur Bench in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2235/2004 Sita Ram Agarwal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 25.08.2006 which has already been referred and followed in the aforesaid quoted decision of coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.07.2007. 4. The matter pertains to recovery of excess shortage in wheat products and grains sold by the petitioner and other similarly situated wholesale distributors under the Fair Price Shop Keepers Scheme floated by the State Government. 5. Since, the controversy of this nature has already been decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court, this writ petition is also to be disposed of in terms of the decision dated 11.07.2007 in the case of Wholesale – Retail Sellers Union Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the said decision. No order as to costs. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI) J. preety ITEM NO. 29