SHASHI DULI CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.08.2016 (Annex.7) wherein licence of the petitioner of an agency for Small Savings has been cancelled on the ground that brother-in-law of the petitioner (Jeth- Hansraj Solanki) was working in Postal Department and as such due to violation of Rule 2(3) of the Agency Rules, the licence Nos.C/0184409 and F/0475696 have been cancelled by respondent No.3- the Treasury Officer (Alp Bachat), Jaisalmer. This Court on 21.09.2016 while issuing notices in the writ petition had stayed, the operation of order dated 19.08.2016.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the agency of the petitioner was terminated illegally as the relation of brother-in-law (Jeth- Hansraj Solanki) is not covered under Rule 2(3). The definition of close relatives does not specifically cover the relation of brother-in-law (Jeth- Hansraj Solanki) and as such the order has been passed on wrong premise. The definition given under Rule 2 is reproduced as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel submitted that the word extra (etc. vkfn ) includes the relation of brother-in-law (Jeth- Hansraj Solanki) and as such, the agency was rightly terminated. Learned counsel, however, did not deny the fact the person whose reference was made while terminating the agency of the petitioner has already been retired from service for the Postal Department.