KALURAM MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.10.2012, passed by District Supply Officer, Dausa suspending the petitioner's licence for running a fair price shop. Counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the order of suspension dated 13.10.2012, neither regular enquiry has been conducted, nor any adverse order has been passed so far. He submits that in these circumstances, continuation of the order of suspension under Regulation 8(2) of the Rajasthan Food Grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (hereinafter 'the order of 1976') cannot sustain beyond 90 days of its issue and thereafter has to automatically cease. He submits that this continued effect of the order of suspension beyond 90 days of its issue is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, counsel has relied upon on the judgment of this Court in SBCWP NO. 5404/07, Ramswroop Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 11.11.2008, wherein it has been held that after expiry 90 days, the order of suspension cannot be continued any further.

(2.) MR . K. Verma, Addl. G.C. appearing for the respondents, has stated that the licence of the petitioner was suspended on account of his conviction in a criminal case for an offence under Section 308 IPC. He submits that merely because the petitioner has filed a criminal appeal against the order of his conviction and has been granted the benefit of suspension of his sentence on 31.01.2013 by the appellate court, it does not entail the washing away the stigma and effect of conviction against the petitioner. He submits that in the facts of the case, the petitioner has no case.

(3.) HAVING heard the counsel for the parties and having perused material on record, this Court holds that the order of suspension of the licence of the petitioner on 13.10.2012 cannot be operative subsequent to 90 days of its issue in view of the provisions of Regulation 8(2) of the Order of 1976 -no matter what the cause. Consequently, the petitioner would be allowed to operate his fair price shop for which he continues to be presently authorised -without any hindrance from the order dated 13.10.2012. The respondents are however at liberty to proceed with an inquiry against the petitioner qua any breach of the conditions of the authorisation to run the fair price shop or otherwise as statutorily permissible in accordance with law and pass any order thereon including an order of cancellation if so warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case considered in conjunction with the provisions of law. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Stay application needs no address in view of the petition having been allowed.