KHEMRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was running a fair price shop since 2006 and on 5/8/2016, the District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh issued a show cause notice (Annex.-1) stating therein that certain discrepancies have been found in the fair price shop run by the petitioner as per the report dtd. 1/8/2016 submitted by the Enforcement Officer, whereby petitioner was directed to submit reply or evidence by 10:00 AM on 3/10/2016 and on the same day, licence of the petitioner for fair price shop was suspended for 90 days vide order dtd. 5/8/2016 (Annex.2) by District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh. Thereafter, a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 3/10/2016 (Annex.3) to the aforesaid show cause notice dtd. 5/8/2016. However, the District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh vide order dtd. 22/5/2020 (Annex.4) cancelled the licence No. 19/2006 which was issued to the petitioner for running fair price shop. Aggrieved by the order dtd. 22/5/2020, the petitioner herein preferred first appeal before the District Collector, Chittorgarh, however, the District Collector vide order dtd. 19/4/2022 (Annex.5) upheld the order dtd. 22/5/2020. Thereafter, aggrieved by the order dtd. 19/4/2022 passed by the District Collector, the petitioner herein preferred revision petition before the Assistant Food Commissioner, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Rajasthan, Jaipur and the said revision petition was dismissed vide order dtd. 20/9/2023 (Annex.6) and orders dtd. 22/5/2020 and 19/4/2022 were upheld by the revisional authority.

(3.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant controversy is squarely covered by the order dtd. 8/7/2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8248/2021, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench had quash the impugned orders on the account that the petitioner had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and had also directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned District Supply Officer and file his reply while affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The said order is reproduced hereunder: