SANJAY SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 8. 5. 2000 whereby the revision petition preferred by the District Supply Officer was allowed by the Food Commissioner and the order passed by the Collector in the appeal of the petitioner dated 13. 8. 1999 was set aside.

(2.) THE petitioner was a licencee of the fair price dealer having shop No. 542a in Jaipur City. THE respondent undertook the massive drive of checking fair price shops in the month of December, 1996. THE petitioner's shop was also inspected on 15/16. 12. 1996 by the District Supply Officer (hereinafter referred to as `dso') of the Headquarters. THE show cause notice was issued to him on 26. 12. 1996 which was replied to by the petitioner. THE licence of the petitioner was cancelled and his security amount forfeited by the DSO (Headquarters) vide order dated 13. 5. 1997. THE petitioner preferred appeal against the said order before Collector, Jaipur under Clause 22 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1976. THE Collector by order dated 13. 8. 1999 allowed the appeal holding that no proper enquiry was conducted pursuant to the notice issued by the DSO and that the major charges against the petitioner were not proved and that the charges was not serious enough to warrant cancellation of the licence. THE revision petition filed thereagainst was however allowed by the Commissioner vide order dated 8. 5. 2000 which is impugned in the present proceedings.

(3.) IN the facts of the present case, I am also not persuaded to uphold the argument of the petitioner that the revisional authority interfered with the order of District Collector acting beyond the pale of his jurisdiction or acted outside the scope of clause 22a of the Control Order of 1976. He has not specifically dealt with any of the findings recorded by the District Collector. The revisional authority may have had the opportunity to decide identical revision petitions together by a common order but in doing so, it was certainly required to discuss and deal with findings recorded by the Collector in each of the cases separately by giving reasons for upsetting the findings recorded by the Collector because no generalisation can be made with regard to the irregularities committed by different licensees of fair price shops.