LAJPAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that as per the Government's own decision dated 13.8.2009, additional fair price shop can be opened where number of ration cards may be 500. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, at one place, where there are more than 900 ration cards, no decision was taken for opening fair price shops in addition to the existing shop, whereas the area where the petitioner's shop is existing, only 497 ration cards are there and this fact is clear from Annex.1, yet the respondents vide order dated 28.4.2010 decided to open one more shop. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in this way, the petitioner's business is likely to be adversely affected because of opening of additional fair price shop and the action of the respondents is violative of Annex.3 dated 13.8.2009.

(2.) The guidelines issued by order Annex.3 dated 13.8.2009 are only guidelines and not mandatory in nature because of the simple reason that it is for the State administration to take a decision where a fair price shop should be and how many of them can be opened. If situation requires opening of fair price shop at a place where number of ration card is some what less than 500, then that can be taken inspite of the order dated 13.8.2009. So far as not opening of fair price shop at a place where there are more than 900 ration cards, for that area, fair price shop can be opened but because of that reason, the decision of the respondents to open a fair price shop at a place where 500 ration cards are available, cannot be challenged on the ground of any equality or parity. In the present case, as per the petitioner, there were only 497 ration cards in the area, therefore, according to the petitioner, himself, only 3 ration cards were less than the number given in Annex.3 dated 13.8.2009. In that fact situation, the petitioner cannot raise an objection even on the basis of Annex.3.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's shop is covered only by area of 1 km. that is also not relevant because of the reason that where the population is thick, area may be less and where the population is thin, area may be more.