[2025:RJ-JP:6203] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6044/2014 Grah Laxmi Udhyag Sahakari Samiti Limited (Mahila) @ Chiklad vanopaj Bahuudeshiya Aajivika Sahkari Samiti, Near Krashi Mandi, Samta Marg, Pratapgarh (Raj.) Through Manager Ashish S/o Shri Kailash Chand Teli, Aged about 27 years. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Matters Department, State of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. District Collector, Pratapgarh 3. District Supply Officer, Pratapgarh. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6045/2014 Grah Laxmi Udhyag Sahakari Samiti Limited (Mahila) (Laxmi Grah Udhyog Sahkari Samiti Ltd.) Near Krashi Mandi, Samta Marg, Pratapgarh (Raj.) Through Manager Miss. Shilpa D/o Shri Mahipal Sethia Aged about 22 years. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Matters Department, State of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. District Collector, Pratapgarh 3. District Supply Officer, Pratapgarh. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6046/2014 Grah Laxmi Udhyag Sahakari Samiti Limited (Mahila) (Laxmi Grah Udhyog Sahkari Samiti Ltd.) Near Krashi Mandi, Samta Marg, Pratapgarh (Raj.) Through Manager Miss. Shilpa D/o Shri Mahipal Sethia Aged about 22 years. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Matters Department, State of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. District Collector, Pratapgarh 3. District Supply Officer, Pratapgarh. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Kumar Agarwal For Respondent(s) : [2025:RJ-JP:6203] (2 of 2) [CW-6044/2014] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 12/02/2025 1. In all three writ petitions, petitioner is common party and has prayed for restoration of its authorization to run Fair Price Shops and simultaneously, a challenge has been made to the impugned orders whereby and whereunder its license/ authorization was cancelled. 2. The writ petitions were filed wayback on 19.05.2014 and thereafter it is assumed that subsequent developments have obviously taken place. 3. Counsel for petitioner is fair enough to admit that no one on behalf of petitioner have turned up in his office to pursue the writ petitions on merits. 4. In such view, he submits that proceedings of writ petitions may be closed with liberty to petitioner to revive the writ petitions, in case any grievance/ cause of action survives. 5. In view of above, writ petitions stand disposed of with liberty as prayed for. 6. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /81-83