SUMER SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

SUMER SINGH v STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS - CW Case No. 734 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 2062 (17 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

ORDER

Sumer Singh

Versus

State and ors.

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.734/2007

Date of Order : 17/4/2007.

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

Shri Nav Ratan Singh for the petitioner.

******

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated /1/2007 whereby the allotment of Fair Price Shop has een made in favour of Matadeen Meena, respondent No.4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued hat there were in all five applicants and petitioner as one of them. Name of respondent No.4 was placed at

Sr.No.2 in the merit list but respondents have illegally made allotment of the Fair Price Shop to him in preference to the petitioner. It was argued that the impugned-order therefore, being illegal is liable to be set-aside.

On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned-order, I find that there is a provision of appeal under the provisions of Clause 22 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains & Other Essential Articles

(Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 to the District

Collector. In the face of alternative remedy of appeal,

I do not find any extraordinary reason to entertain this writ petition.

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the allotment order made in favour of respondent No.4, appropriate remedy for him to challenge the same would be to file appeal before Food Commissioner under Clause 22 of the

Rajasthan Foodgrains & Other Essential Articles

(Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976. If the appeal is filed within four weeks, the concerned authority shall decide the same after hearing petitioner as well as respondent No.4 in accordance with law as early as possible but not later than six months from the date of submissin of such appeal.

With this observation, the petition is dismissed.(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.

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

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.