Jagdish Kumar and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.—By way of these writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the legality of the order dated 6.2.13 issued by the District Supply Officer, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the Authorisation Letters issued in their favour to operate Mobile Fair Price Shop in the allotted area, stands cancelled in compliance of order dated 1.2.13 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Matters.

The petitioners were issued Authorisation Letters to operate Mobile Fair Price Shop in the area allotted specified in the Authorisation Letters. According to the petitioners, later, the Authorisation issued for operating Mobile Fair Price Shop in their favour were converted into Authorisation Letter for operating the Fair Price Shops at the specific places and the entries in this regard, were made in the Authorisation Letters issued in their favour.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order impugned cancelling the Authorisation Letters issued in favour of the petitioners has been passed under total misconception inasmuch as, as per the order impugned, the petitioners'' Authorisation Letters have been cancelled solely on the ground that in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, directions are issued by the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Matters, for cancellation of the Authorisation Letters issued for operating Mobile Fair Price Shops, whereas, the Authorisation Letters issued in favour of the petitioners initially for operating Mobile Fair Price Shop stand converted into the Authorisation Letter for operating the Fair Price Shop at specific place in the allotted area. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to undertake the computerisation of the shops as directed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of "PUCL vs. Union of India" and therefore, there is no reason why the Authorisation Letters issued in their favour should be cancelled. Learned counsel submitted that the Authorisation Letters issued in favour of the petitioners have been cancelled by the District Supply Officer without giving an opportunity of hearing to them and therefore, the order impugned passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, deserves to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in compliance of the directions issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in PUCL''s case, the State Government has taken a decision to computerise the public distribution system and therefore, the order impugned passed in furtherance of the said decision, cancelling the petitioners'' Authorisation Letters permitting them to operate Mobile Fair Price Shops in the areas allotted, cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that order dated 21.8.03, changing the place permanently cannot be construed to mean that the petitioners have been authorised to operate Permanent Fair Price Shops. Learned counsel submitted that on account of Authorisation being issued in favour of the petitioners to operate the Mobile Fair Price Shops, no right is created in their favour to claim continuance thereof for an indefinite period and in view of the policy decision taken by the State Government, no opportunity of hearing was required to be extended to them before passing the order for cancellation of the Authorisation Letters.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

A perusal of the Authorisation Letters issued in favour of the petitioners placed on record, reveals that in the first instance, the petitioners were granted Authorisation Letters to operate Mobile Fair Price Shop, however, later, on different dates, in place of ''Mobile Fair Price Shop'', the area allotted for distribution Fair Price Commodities and the place where the petitioners shall operate the Fair Price Shops, were specifically mentioned. It is to be noticed that the entries regarding the area allotted permanently were incorporated in the Authorisation Letters issued in favour of the petitioners pursuant to order dated 21.8.03 issued by the District Collector (Supply), Sri Ganganagar. However, the entry regarding the place where the petitioner-Jagdish Kumar (Writ Petition No. 1556/13) shall operate Fair Price Shop was made on 2.11.09. The entry regarding permanent place of business was made in the Authorisation Letter issued in favour of the petitioner-Rajesh Kumar (Writ Petition No. 1529/13) on 14.12.99. The permanent place of business in the Authorisation Letter issued in favour of the petitioner-Nand Kishore (Writ Petition No. 1530/13) was entered on 6.11.97, which was later changed on 9.11.98. Similarly, the permanent place of business of the petitioner-Jagdish Chandra (Writ Petition No. 1587/13) was entered on 22.8.98, which was later substituted by another place w.e.f. 9.11.98 vide order dated 10.11.98. Suffice it to say that as per the Authorisation Letters, not only the petitioners have been allotted permanent area for operating the Fair Price Shop but their permanent place of business have also been entered in the Authorisation Letters and therefore, it cannot be said that the Authorisation Letters initially issued in favour of the petitioners to operate Mobile Fair Price Shops have not been converted into the Authorisation Letters for operating the Fair Price Shops at specific place for distribution of the fair price commodities in the area allotted permanently. Thus, the cancellation of the Authorisation Letters issued in favour of the petitioners on the premise that they are operating Mobile Fair Price Shops appears to have been passed without looking into the record and taking into consideration the subsequent events. Admittedly, while cancelling the Authorisation Letters, no opportunity of hearing has been extended to the petitioners. In the considered opinion of this court, the cancellation of the Authorisation Letters issued in favour of the petitioners have civil and evil consequences and therefore, no order could have been passed by the authority concerned without giving them an opportunity of hearing.

In view of the discussion above, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The order impugned cancelling the Authorisation Letters is quashed qua the petitioners. No order as to costs.