Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman has issued a directive mandating the immediate disclosure of an administrative order concerning the allocation of a Fair Price Shop license. The Court has held that the denial of the license-related order to an aggrieved applicant constituted a "gross inaction and an illegal action" on the part of the concerned authorities. In disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed the relevant respondent authority to furnish the contested order within a stipulated timeframe and granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies thereafter.

The petition was filed by four individuals—Bhomaram, Premi Bai, Sita Bai, and Nenu—all residents of Ward No. 5, Village Nayapura, Gram Panchayat Nayapura, Tehsil Patodi, District Balotra, Rajasthan. The respondents included the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary of the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, various district-level authorities in Barmer and Balotra, and private individuals associated with the local governance structure.

Also Read: Preventive Detention Must Not Circumvent Ordinary Criminal Law | Order Set Aside As State Failed To Show Threat To Public Order : Supreme Court

The primary grievance of the petitioners cantered around the grant of a Fair Price Shop license by the District Supply Officer. According to the petition, one of the petitioners had applied for the license, and the committee constituted to scrutinize the applications had recommended his name for allotment. Contrary to this recommendation, the license was allegedly granted in favor of a private respondent, identified as respondent No.10, Shaukat Khan.

It was submitted that the petitioners were neither informed of the rejection of their candidature nor provided with a copy of the order granting the license to the private respondent. Despite submitting formal representations to the authorities, no response was received. The petitioner also invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking disclosure of the licensing order, but no copy was furnished even after this statutory request.

The petitioners argued that such non-disclosure adversely affected their ability to challenge the decision through appropriate statutory remedies. In the absence of the licensing order, they were unable to file an appeal under Regulation 22 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (referred to as the Order of 1976).

The respondents in the case included both administrative officials and members of the Allotment Advisory Committee. The petition did not elaborate on the defense or justifications offered by the respondents. However, the judicial record primarily focused on the procedural impropriety arising from the failure to disclose the licensing order.

The petitioners sought a direction from the Court to compel the authorities to furnish a copy of the license order and permit them to seek remedy under the statutory framework provided by the Order of 1976.

The Court examined the materials on record and the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel. It noted the core issue of non-disclosure of the licensing order. The Court stated in "this is a gross inaction and an illegal action on the part of the respondents in not furnishing the copy of the order which favoured the grant of the license in favour of the private respondent herein i.e., respondent No.10."

It further recorded that "the petitioner has the right to take a statutory remedy under the Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order of 1976'), and without such order, the petitioner cannot avail such remedy."

The Bench took note of the fact that despite filing representations and invoking the Right to Information Act, the petitioner had not been furnished with the order in question. "Though the petitioner has filed representations, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondent No.4 to furnish the copy of the order granting the license in favour of the private respondent i.e., respondent No.10."

On the question of the petitioner's rights under statutory remedies, the Court explicitly stated: "On furnishing such order, the petitioner is given liberty to file an appeal before the statutory authority under Regulation 22 of the Order of 1976."

The judgment reflects a procedural safeguard and states the petitioner’s entitlement to be informed of administrative decisions that affect their legal rights. The observations state the nexus between transparency, procedural propriety, and access to legal remedies under statutory frameworks.

The Court underscored the importance of providing applicants with the means to challenge licensing decisions, particularly when recommendations by competent committees are not followed. The non-disclosure of the licensing order was thus viewed not merely as a procedural lapse but as an infringement on the petitioner’s statutory rights.

In its concluding directions, the Court ordered respondent No.4 to provide the petitioner with the order granting the license to respondent No.10.

Also Read: Kerala HC Orders Arrest Of MSC AKITETA II | Rs 9531 Crore Claim For Oil Spill And Pollution Damage | Court Finds Prima Facie Maritime Claim Against Sister Vessel Of MSC ELSA III

"This Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondent No.4 to furnish the copy of the order granting the license in favour of the private respondent i.e., respondent No.10. The order shall be furnished to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order."

The Court also provided the petitioner the liberty to pursue appellate remedies upon receipt of the order: "On furnishing such order, the petitioner is given liberty to file an appeal before the statutory authority under Regulation 22 of the Order of 1976. If any such appeal is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be disposed of within a period of one month from the date of filing of such appeal, by duly giving an opportunity to the private respondent i.e., respondent No.10."

With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of, and the Court declined to entertain any further relief at that stage.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ram Prasad Sangaria, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Nitesh Mathur, Advocate

Case Title: Bhomaram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:29181

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18210/2024

Bench: Justice Munnuri Laxman