[2025:RJ-JP:34026] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10534/2025 Ramakant Sharma Son Of Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, Resident- Gram Panchayat Todra, Tehsil And Distt. Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary And Food Commissioner, Food And Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Additional Food Officer, Food And Civil Supplies Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Distt. Collector, Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 4. District Supply Officer, Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 27/08/2025 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 03.11.2017, 05.09.2018 and 23.04.2025 whereby the license to deal in fair price shop was canceled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without carrying out any enquiry merely on hearsay evidences, the show cause notice was issued. It is submitted that due reply in response to the show cause notice dated 09.01.2017 was submitted by the petitioner, categorically stating that the reason of closure was due to an unavoidable reason i.e. ill health of the father of the petitioner. It is also submitted that for non supply of 2.5 liters of [2025:RJ-JP:34026] (2 of 4) [CW-10534/2025] Kerosene, appropriate reply was given that there is no beaker with the capacity and volume to hold 2.5 liters of liquid. It is also submitted that the display of board was also stolen, which was conducted by certain anti-social element. Learned counsel has fairly conceded that there might be certain technical lapses in the reply, however, the same shall be cured and not be repeated in future. 3. Learned counsel has taken an argument that without any concurrent evidences, the show cause notice and orders were passed vis-a-vis transmission and contents of the show cause notice without any enquiry, per-se violates the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel to substantiate the submissions made insofar and for quashing of the orders has relied upon judgment of Deepak Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.24637/2018 decided vide judgment dated 21.02.2022, and Mr. Yadupati Singhania vs. Deputy Inspector General & ors. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20167/2018 decided vide order dated 22.02.2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13154/2021 titled as Hari Singh Gurjar vs. Additional Food Commissioner & ors. and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15584/2016 titled as Ramkhiladi Meena vs. Rajasthan State through Principal Secretary to Government and Food Commissioner & ors. 5. Relying upon the said judgments, it is submitted that when drastic steps of cancellation are to be taken, the principle of natural justice should be followed in support of allegations. [2025:RJ-JP:34026] (3 of 4) [CW-10534/2025] 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of a view that: (i) There is a concurrent finding of fact by all the lower three authorities. (ii) In reply, response to the show cause notice, there is a specific admission qua the fact that shop in question was closed; that no reason was specified qua the ill health of father and qua the allegation of 2.5 liters beaker which were confirmed by approximately 20 persons/ consumers who belong to economically weaker section. (iii) Consequentially irregularities were committed by the petitioner, that are even admitted by the petitioner himself, as it is affirmed by him that he will not carry out the irregularities in the future. The relevant extract from the order dated 23.04.2025 is reproduced herein below: “iSjksdkj ljdkj us izkFkhZ ds ;ksX; vfHkHkk"kd ds rdksZa dk [k.Mu djrs gq;s fuosnu fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dh mfpr ewY; nqdku dk fujh{k.k izorZu vf/kdkjh lokbZek/kksiqj }kjk fnukad 14-12-2016 dks fd;s tkus ij izkFkhZ dks ikcUn fd;s tkus ij Hkh ekSds ij nqdku can ikbZ xbZ] nqdku ds ckgj ewY; lwph cksMZ ugha ik;k x;k] ekSds ij miHkksDrkvksa }kjk crk;k x;k fd Mhyj le; ij nqdku ugha [kksyrk] nks rhu fnu nqdku [kksyrk gS Mhyj <kbZ yhVj ds LFkku ij 2 yhVj gh dsjkslhu rsy dk forj.k djrk gS ,oa ekSds ij 23 jk’kudkMZ/kkfj;ksa us rLnhd lwph vuqlkj Mhyj }kjk fu;fer :i ls forj.k ugha djuk crk;k x;kA tks lkoZtfud forj.k izk.kkyh ds rgr xaHkhj izd`fr dh vfu;ferrkvksa dh Js.kh esa vkrh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fof/k lEer~~ gksus ls izkFkhZ dh iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu cgl ds nkSjku fd;k x;kA” 7. Accordingly, no interference is called for moreover, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner is on different facts and circumstances and is not applicable. [2025:RJ-JP:34026] (4 of 4) [CW-10534/2025] 8. In light of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/51