KANTA BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition Pukhraj Chandak, the proprietor of M/s Damodar Pukhraj Chandak has challenged the legality of the order Ex. 5 dated November 25, 1987 by which his authorisation for the fair price shop at village Kolu Pabuji was cancelled and respondent No. 4, Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kolu Pabuji, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur was appointed as the authorised fair price shop at that village. The petitioner was appointed as the authorised fair price shop at village Kolu Pabuji vide order Annexure -1 dated January 3, 1987 and deposited the required amount of security on 5th January, 1987. The authorisation letter Annexure -3 dated 8th January, 1987 issued Under clause 3(4) of the Rajasthan Foodgrains and other Essential Articles (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short 'the Order of 1976' here in after). It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner did the supply work in accordance with the order to his utmost capacity and all fairness and there was no complaint against him. That, no time limit was prescribed under the authorization order Annexure -3. However, vide impugned order Annexure -5 issued on 25th November, 1987. as stated earlier, respondent No. 4 was appointed as authorised fair price shop without any notice or opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner, has, therefore, challenged the legality of Annex. -5 dated 25th November, 1987 on the ground that the Collector or the District Supply Officer had no authority to cancel the authorization of the petitioner and prayed that the order Annexure -5 dt. 25th November, 1987 be quashed. Notices were issued to the respondents. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in their written reply admitted the authorisation to the petitioner stating that initially Gram Panchayat Sahakari Samiti, Kolu Pabuji was running this shop but due to some financial exigency, it could not be continued and, therefore, one Bhim Singh was authorised to run the shop. As Bhim Singh also could not run the shop it was allotted in the name of the petitioner. That it was only a stop gap arrangement to avoid the difficulty of the public at large and following the directions issued vide order dated 27th February, 1986, specifically providing that top priority should be given to the Co -operative Societies whose financial condition is good and against whom no serious allegations or complaints are pending the authorisation was given to respondent No. 4 the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kolu -Pabuji. That because of the Co -operative Society, respondent No. 4 being ready to run the shop, the Assistant Registrar Co -operative Society, Jodhpur recommended for issuing of licence to it as per intention of the direction Ex. R/1 and authorisation was issued in its favour in place of the petitioner. That when the Co -operative Society was prepared to do the supply work, the petitioner could not be allowed to continue the shop. That the order Annexure -5 was issued in pursuance of the provisions of the Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act' here in after) to encourage and promote the Coperative movement in the State.
(3.) REGARDING the notice to the petitioner before cancelling the authorisation, it has been stated that authorisation was a stop -gap arrangement which conferred no right on the petitioner. The entertainability of the writ petition has also been challenged on the ground that the petitioner without availling the alternative remedy of filing the appeal under Section 22 and Revision Petition under Section 22(A) of the Order of 1976 has approached this Court and on this count also, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;