- (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.08.2016 (Annex.7) wherein licence of the petitioner of an agency for Small Savings has been cancelled on the ground that brother-in-law of the petitioner (Jeth- Hansraj Solanki) was working in Postal Department and as such due to violation of Rule 2(3) of the Agency Rules, the licence Nos.C/0184409 and F/0475696 have been cancelled by respondent No.3- the Treasury Officer (Alp Bachat), Jaisalmer. This Court on 21.09.2016 while issuing notices in the writ petition had stayed, the operation of order dated 19.08.2016.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the agency of the petitioner was terminated illegally as the relation of brother-in-law (Jeth- Hansraj Solanki) is not covered under Rule 2(3). The definition of close relatives does not specifically cover the relation of brother-in-law (Jeth- Hansraj Solanki) and as such the order has been passed on wrong premise. The definition given under Rule 2 is reproduced as under:- "2. ...Vernacular Text Omitted..." Learned counsel further submitted that not only by interim order petitioner continued to run the agency but even the ground on which the agency was terminated, as the relative of the petitioner brother-in-law (Jeth- Hansraj Solanki) is said to e working in postal department whereas the brother-in-law of the petitioner has already been retired on 30.09.2017 and in view of these peculiar circumstances, the disqualification for cancellation of licence does not survive any more. Mr. Durga Ram, learned counsel for the respondents appeared and submitted that the order dated 19.08.2016 was rightly passed and the definition given in Rule 2 was illustrative and not exhaustive.
(3.) Learned counsel submitted that the word extra (etc. vkfn ) includes the relation of brother-in-law (Jeth- Hansraj Solanki) and as such, the agency was rightly terminated. Learned counsel, however, did not deny the fact the person whose reference was made while terminating the agency of the petitioner has already been retired from service for the Postal Department. This Court finds that the order dated 19.08.2016 was passed on wrong premise however interim order passed by this Court had permitted the petitioner to run the agency. This Court, however, finds that the ground of terminating agency, on account of relative of petitioner working in the Postal Department has attained the age of superannuation and the alleged disqualification is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ;