ISRANI, J. - (1.) HEARD on stay application. This matter has come up for confirmation of stay. However reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, therefore, the writ petition was heard and finally decided with consent of both the parties.
(2.) IT is submitted by Shri Rafiq, learned counsel that, petitioner is an unemployed graduate and is having a fair-price shop in Ward No. 4. Originally a notice was issued to bifurcate 8 wards, subsequently this bifurcation was made only in 3 wards including that of the petitioner. IT is submitted that in all three wards, the fair-price shops have been given to near relatives of the employees of D. S. O. Office. IT is submitted that non-petitioner No. 4 is father of Ashok Kumar, who has been allotted a fair-price shop in the ward of the petitioner after its bifurcation. IT is submitted by learned counsel that the shops have been allotted to the allottees by showing extra-ordinary favour to relatives of the employees in the D. S. O, Office. It is submitted by Shri P. S. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that notice Anx. 2 was issued on 6. 3. 91 calling for application of such persons, whom desire to apply for allotment of fair-price shop. Interview were held not by D. S. O. , but also three other persons including the Assistant Collector & Treasury Officer. Annexure R/l shows that son of the petitioner has obtained highest marks, on account of which, this shop has been allotted to him. It is also submitted that son of the petitioner Babulal also appeared in the interview, but secured less marks than son of non-petitioner No. 4. It is also submitted that non-petitioner's son has right to do business and no favouratism has been shown to him. It is also submitted that under Order 22 of the Rajasthan Food grains & other Essential Articles Order, 1976, (for brevity 'the order, 1976')the appeal is provided and the petitioner should have availed of this alternative remedy. I have heard both the parties and also gone through the documents on record. The Order 1976 itself provides provision for appeal which is efficacious, alternative remedy, but the petitioner has not availed of the same. I am, therefore,of the opinion that in such matter, the petitioner should not have rushed to this Court and should have availed of this efficacious remedy which was available to him, I do not express any opinion regarding merits of other arguments, since I am of the opinion that appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file appeal before the Appellate Authority as provided in Order 1976. It is, therefore, directed that, if the petitioner files an appeal before the appropriate authority under Order 22 of Order, 1976 within a period of 15 days the same shall be decided on merits. Till he files the appeal within the period above mentioned, the material for distribution to Ashok Kumar son of non-petitioner No. 4 shall not be given. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of as above with no order as to costs. . ;