IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER M/s. Radheyshyam Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1048/2005) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: November 14, 2008 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Mahendra Goyal, for the petitioner. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the case is being heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated November 2, 2004 (Annexure-8) whereby the trading licence of the petitioner was suspended for a period of six months, and the order dated December 28, 2004 (Annexure-9) passed by State Government upholding the order dated November 2, 2004. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner firm is a licence holder from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Nawalgarh under the provisions of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act,1961 (`the Act' for short). A charge sheet was issued against the petitioner firm. According to the charge sheet, the firm (in the years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2001) had imported sugar from outside the State of Rajasthan. But it did not deposit the Mandi-fee. Thus, it had violated the provisions of section 17 of the Act as well as the condition of the licence. The petitioner firm submitted the reply and denied the charges. It contended that no charge can be levelled against the petitioner on the basis of an entry of the firm who had allegedly sent the sugar. Further, in the same matter the said firm had lodged FIR, but the police also could not prove that sugar was imported by the petitioner firm. However, the respondent No.2, vide order dated November 2, 2004, suspended the licence of petitioner firm for a period of six months. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Director, Agricultural Marketing Board Jaipur. But vide order dated December 28, 2004, the appeal was also dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court. 5. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner firm is that the same exact allegation, as levelled against the petitioner firm, were also levelled against other firms, namely that they imported sugar from outside the State of Rajasthan, yet they were not showing the import and evading payment of mandi-fee. However, the State Government vide order dated November 8, 2006 had quashed and set aside the order of Samiti dated November 2, 2004 passed in case of M/s.Ghasi Ram Mathura Prasad Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Nawalgarh on the ground that the police had filed final report. However, in case of the petitioner the State Government has refused to set aside the same impugned order dated November 2, 2004. Thus the State Government has passed two different orders in cases arising out of same factual matrix. Hence, the impugned order dated December 28, 2004 suffers from arbitrariness. 6. In this case it is interesting to note that although the petitioner firm, alongwith five other firms, was charged for importing sugar from outside the State of Rajasthan and had tried to evade mandi-fee, yet two different orders have been passed by the government. In the cases arising out of the same factual matrix, two different yardsticks cannot be applied. When even the police could not prove that sugar was imported in State of Rajasthan and filed final report in the case, the firms in State of Rajasthan cannot be put to suffer. Therefore, the impugned orders dated November 2, 2004 and December 28, 2004 are clearly unsustainable. 7. In the result, the writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned orders dated November 2, 2004 (annexure-8) and December 28, 2004 (annexure-9) are quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn