w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Nagpur Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd. v/s State of Rajasthan & Others

    Civil Writ Petition No. 3354 of 1998

    Decided On, 16 November 1998

    At, High Court of Rajasthan


    For the Appellant: M.S. Singhvi, Advocate. For the Respondents: K.N. Joshi, Gopi Kishan Vyas, Advocates.

Judgment Text

B.J. Shethna, J.

1. Petitioner, Nagpur Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Nagpur has challenged in this petition impugned order dated 3-10-98 (Annex. 3) passed by the Dy. Commissioner whereby the quota of sugar allotted to the petitioner for the month of October, 1998 was reduced from 228 metric tonnes to 125 metric tonnes and 103 metric tonnes of sugar has been allotted to the respondent No. 3 - Hirni Dhani Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited. This order has been challenged by way of this writ petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Learned counsel Shri Singhvi firstly submitted that by passing the impugned order at Annex. 3, the rights of the petitioner to do the business has been vitally and substantially affected as without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. This submission has no substance for the simple reason that it was an authorisation for which no writ would lie. The authority, which has power to give authorisation, it can curtail for a limited period at any time for which no opportunity of hearing was required to be given. At this stage, it may be stated that the order was passed only for the month of October, 1998.

3. Mr. Singhvi then submitted that the impugned order was passed at the instance of the Special Assistant of the Food Minister. It has been clearly stated in the impugned order itself that it was done at the instance of Special Assistant of Food Minister but that does not mean that on that ground the order is required to be quashed. Considering the necessity if the order is passed for a particular period by which the quota of sugar is reduced then the petitioner cannot make any such grievance. The submission was that respondent No. 3 is only retail dealer. The area was later on extended for which the petitioner had also raised objection. This type of administrative decision cannot be gone into by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Last submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially authorisation was given by the Collector and the impugned order is passed by the Dy. Commissioner, who has no jurisdiction to pass such order. This submission has also no substance. It is done at the instance of the Food Minister, who has always power to pass appropriate order considering the exigency o

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

f the matter, No person has right to claim to have full business much less the petitioner. 5. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, it fails and is dismissed. Stay granted earlier stands vacated.