MUNSHI KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dt. 22.09.1998 by which the District Supply Officer, Ajmer has cancelled his license as fair price shop dealer on allegations contained in show cause notice dt. 22.06.1998.

(3.) APART from raising arguments about correctness of findings recorded by DSO on the charges contained in show cause notice as confirmed by Appellate and Revisional Authority, Shri Suresh Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised one significant argument that when the inspection of the shop of petitioner was carried out by Inspector of Supply Department, he had no authority to make entry, search and seizure of his report. In this connection, learned Counsel relied on Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 1998, which has been promulgated by President of India on 25.04.1998. Learned Counsel submitted that when this argument was raised by petitioner before the Revisional Authority the same was rejected observing that although the ordinance was promulgated on 25.04.1998, but it elapsed in July, 1998 because it was never passed as a law by the Parliament and there was no saving clause and, therefore, provisions contained in Ordinance would not have the force of law. Learned Counsel cited Article 123 of Constitution of India and submitted that ordinance promulgated by the President of India shall have the same force and effect as the law enacted by Parliament and that though it is liable to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament, or, if before the expiration of that period resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those resolution. Learned Counsel submitted that in the first place, the finding that Ordinance expired in July, 1998 is bad and secondly even if it elapsed, the other reasoning given by Additional Food Commissioner that it would not have the force of law is equally perverse.