HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11367/2025 Sanju Mehta Daughter Of Shri Omprakash Mehta, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Salpura, Gram Panchayat Gordhanpura, Tehsil Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. District Supply Officer, Baran, District Baran (Raj.) 2. Nandkishore Kirad Son Of Shri Mathuralal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Nilsi, Village Salpura, Gram Panchayat Gordhanpura, Tehsil Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prameshwar Pilania for Mr. Satish Chandra Pachori JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order 20.10.2023 passed by the District Supply Officer, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the District Collector with a plea that without affording opportunity of hearing, the authorization of the petitioner for running a fair price shop was cancelled and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without following the principles of natural justice, without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled. Learned counsel submits that this plea was specifically taken by the petitioner when the appeal was preferred before the District Collector. (2 of 3) [CW-11367/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid plea of the petitioner was objected by the State on the count that a notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his reply on 19.01.2024. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid contention on behalf of the State is not tenable as the order impugned was passed way-back in the month of October, 2023, i.e., 20.10.2023, hence, there was no reason or occasion available with the petitioner to submit reply on 19.01.2024. Learned counsel submits that the Appellate Court has not applied its mind while rejecting appeal submitted by the petitioner, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that prior to passing of the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and straightaway the order impugned has been passed. These facts have also been overlooked by the District Collector while rejecting the appeal submitted by the petitioner and the appeal has been decided in a cursory manner without application of mind. 6. On this count alone, the writ petition stands disposed of. the order dated 26.05.2025 stands quashed and set-aside and the matter is remitted to the District Collector to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after considering the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 7. It goes without saying that fresh orders would be passed by the Appellate Authority, expeditiously as early as possible, (3 of 3) [CW-11367/2025] preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/86