Citation: Ramcharan Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1192/2016, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (Justice Anand Sharma), decided on 05.10.2026 | 2026:RJ-JP:40626
A licence under the Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 is not heritable and ends on the licensee’s death, and a recovery of alleged dues cannot be enforced against his son, who holds a separate licence, for the father’s alleged liabilities, especially where no notice was ever given to the father. The rule that a litigant must first use the alternative remedy of appeal is a rule of convenience and not an inflexible bar, and does not stop a High Court from hearing a writ petition where the authorities acted without authority of law.
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a recovery notice for about Rs 1.89 lakh that the Sawai Madhopur District Supply Officer sent to a man for dues allegedly owed by his father, who died 12 years earlier. The petitioner, Ramcharan Meena, said that his father held a licence to distribute food items under the Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976, and died on 26 December 2003. The licence was in his father’s own name and ended on his death, and the petitioner was issued a separate licence (No. 2/2004) in February 2004 after his own eligibility was checked. In October 2015, the District Supply Officer issued a notice addressed to the dead father. After the petitioner replied by legal notice that his father had died years earlier, the Officer issued another notice on 29 December 2015 to the petitioner, directing him to deposit Rs 1,88,773.20. The State said that there was an appeal under Clause 22 of the Order of 1976, which the petitioner had not used. Justice Anand Sharma held that, on the uncontroverted facts, the father had held a distinct and independent licence that was not heritable and ended on his death. His father was never given a notice during his lifetime about any irregularity or loss, and a recovery notice issued 12 years after his death “cannot be countenanced under any law”. The petitioner, holding his own licence, is also an independent person, and recovery against another licence-holder cannot be enforced against him. The court also said that the rule of alternative remedy is not an inflexible rule but one of convenience, and a petition can be heard where authorities act without authority of law. It quashed the notice of 29 December 2015 and allowed the petition.