Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Learned Advocate Mr. K.R. Dave sought permission to substitute Annexure-’G’ which is a mark sheet of the First Year B.A. examination. He submitted that through inadvertence, in place of mark sheet of Third Year B.A. this mark sheet is annexed. Permission is granted. 2. Present petition is filed being aggrieved by order dated 03.08.2006 passed by the District Supply Officer, Navasari. It is mentioned in the order that, ‘the addressee’ of the order the petitioner before this Court made false declaration before the authorities to get the allotment of a Fair Price Shop. It is recorded in Paragraph 2 of the Order that the petitioner in her application dated 22.02.2005 declared that her husband Shri Anilbhai Dahyabhai Patel is an agriculturist. The income of the family was not mentioned. On 02.06.2006 when the Chief Supply Inspector asked for a statement of the petitioner, she refused to give statement. However, later on, on 11.07.2006, she gave a statement before the Deputy Mamlatdar (Supply), Chikhali. In that statement, she admitted that her husband Shri Anilbhai Dahvabhai Patel is serving as a teacher since 1999. The authority is (who passed the order District Supply Officer, Navasari) informed by letter dated 19.07.2006 by the District Primary Education Officer, Dang Ahwa that, Shri Anilbhai Dahyabhai Patel is transferred to District Dang from District Ahemdabad and is serving as an Assistant Teacher (Upshikshak) in a primary school at ‘Malanga’. 3. The authority has recorded that Clause 5 of the Government resolution No. VBHD/102002/487/K dated 02.08.2004 provides that, a Fair Price Shop shall be awarded to ‘local educated unemployed’ to provide supplementary employment. Whereas, in Clause 2.9 of the said resolution it is provided that, ‘educated unemployed’ must possess minimum educational qualification of S.S.C. (Secondary School Certificate) or its equivalent; that he should not be having any service or profession, should not have any income and should be of the age not more than 35 years. Whereas, the petitioner Smt. Madhuben Anilbhai Patel cannot be said to have no income as her husband is serving as an Assistant Teacher in a Government school. Thus, in an application made for the allotment of a Fair Price Shop and in the inquiry pursuant thereto, the petitioner suppressed the material information of her husband being in Government service. Whereas, the petitioner Smt. Madhuben Anilbhai Patel cannot be said to have no income as her husband is serving as an Assistant Teacher in a Government school. Thus, in an application made for the allotment of a Fair Price Shop and in the inquiry pursuant thereto, the petitioner suppressed the material information of her husband being in Government service. It is recorded that, Condition 19 of the agreement which was entered into vide the Collector’s order No. SUP/VBHD/MANDVKHDK/ ALLOTMENT/05 dated 04.02.2006 is breached. According to condition 19 by suppressing the information regarding the income, if a Fair Price Shop allotment is wrongly obtained, the allotment is liable to be cancelled. However, in the interest of justice before taking a final decision of cancellation of the allotment, a show cause notice is to be issued and personal hearing is to be given, hence during the pendency of that, licence No. CH-100/06 and the authorization letter/agreement No. 128/06 is suspended for a period of 90 days from the date of the order, i.e., 03.08.2006. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that the income of the husband cannot to be treated as income of the wife and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the allotment of the Fair Price Shop. The argument is motivated by the end result of getting and allotment of Fair Price Shop in favour of the petitioner but then the same is not in consonance with the general principles of law. If what is submitted by Mr. Dave is accepted then the underlying object of the scheme will be frustrated. The object of the scheme is to provide some income to local educated unemployed persons. 5. Mr. Dave next submitted that the authority do not have any power to suspend the licence of the petitioner. He could not point out any specific provision which prohibits passing of the suspension order before passing of the final order. On the contrary, the authority who passed the aforesaid order has specifically mentioned that it was only in the interest of justice that before passing the final order of cancellation of the licence, it is thought fit to issue show cause notice and to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, in the interregnum period, the order of suspension is passed. Despite his best efforts, the learned Advocate for the petitioner could not convince this Court on any ground on which the order impugned can be interfered. On the contrary, the Court is of the opinion that the petition is not only misconceived but is filed for extraneous consideration, making allegations against the authority that the authority wanted the said Fair Price Shop to be awarded/alloted to his niece/nephew. Even if it is so, the remedy lies in taking appropriate action against such allotment as and when it is made. 6. The impugned order is found to be absolutely in order and in accordance with law and, therefore, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only). The deposit of cost should be a condition precedent for the petitioner to approach this Court. * * * * *