Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MITTA LAL MEENA versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SAWAI MADH

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MITTA LAL MEENA v DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SAWAI MADH - CW Case No. 195 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 2038 (17 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR

RAJASTHAN

JAIPUR BENCH

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.195/2006

Mitta Lal Meena Vs. District Collector

(Supply), Sawai Madhopur 17.04.2007

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

Shri P.S. Sharma for petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.5.2006 whereby the allotment of Fair Price Shop at Village

Pipalwara, Distt. Sawaimadhopur has been made in favour of Rajendra Prasad whereas according to the petitioner, the licence for running the said shop was already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 9.8.2005 passed by the District

Collector.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner while no specific order cancelling the Fair Price Shop licence of the petitioner has been passed, but such allotment has been superimposed by the subsequent order dated 22.5.2006 whereby the very same fair price shop has been allotted to one

Rajendra Prasad. According to the petitioner, this order has been passed pursuant to the order of the Department of Food & Civil Supply dated 2.4.2006 and, therefore, appeal would not be an appropriate remedy.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, I find that clause 22 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains & Other

Essential Articles (Regulation of

Distribution) Order, 1976 provides for the remedy of appeal against the order of

Collector / DSO to the Commissioner.

Merely because in the order dated 22.5.06, some reference has been made to the order passed by the department, it cannot be said that the appellant authority would not be competent to hear the matter. The copy of order dated 2.4.2006 having not been placed on record, it is not clear as to what are the nature of directions contained in it, but certainly such order appears to be general in nature and not containing any specific direction regarding disputed shop alone.

I do not therefore find any extraordinary reason to directly entertain the writ petition. However the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appeal before the Food Commissioner within two weeks who shall upon hearing the petitioner decide the same in accordance with law within three months thereafter.

With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Mohammad Rafiq),J.

Rs/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.