Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 72 (GUJ)

Jaipalsinh Pratapsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat

2008-02-11

C.K.BUCH

body2008
JUDGMENT : C.K. Buch, J. Invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside order passed by respondent No.2 dated 22.4.1996, confirming the order passed by the District Civil Supply Officer cancelling the retail fair price shop licence No. 199/1983 issued for distribution of kerosene and forfeiting the amount of deposit of Rs. 750/- of the petitioner. It is also prayed that order passed by the State Government dated 29.6.1996 also be quashed. The legality and validity of these orders have been challenged on various grounds mentioned in the memo of petition. 2. Backbone of the say of the present petitioner is that the authorities have accepted the charges as proved, which are based on 'no evidence'. No evidence worth name was supplied to the petitioner in support of the charge and, therefore, all these orders are violative of principle of natural justice and, therefore, cannot sustain in the eye of law. 3. I have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in the memo of petition as well as the charges that were levelled against the present petitioner as the same are reflected in the notice to show cause issued to the petitioner dated 30.7.1994. 4. It appears that on 30.6.1994 and also on 1/2.7.1994, there was a surprise checking of the fair price shop of the present petitioner and the Checking Squad had found number of irregularities, i.e. about 21 irregularities. The petitioner was asked to tender his explanation and to appear for hearing on 16.8.1994. The written explanation given by the present petitioner to the District Supply Officer is also on record vide Annexure-'D'. On careful reading of the reply, it is clear that the same is substantively vague and unconvincing. Initially, the District Civil Supply Officer had suspended the licence of the present petitioner for 90 days and after hearing the present petitioner, his licence was cancelled and deposit of Rs. 750/- was ordered to be confiscated. The Collector, thereafter, held that the findings of the District Civil Supply Officer are absolutely legal and irregularities noticed are serious in nature and the Collector ultimately held that the petitioner has disposed of the stock of kerosene in large scale without issuing bills to the consumers- card holders. 750/- was ordered to be confiscated. The Collector, thereafter, held that the findings of the District Civil Supply Officer are absolutely legal and irregularities noticed are serious in nature and the Collector ultimately held that the petitioner has disposed of the stock of kerosene in large scale without issuing bills to the consumers- card holders. The account of stock received and sold to the consumers was also not found to be maintained properly. On careful reading of the order passed by the State Government as Revisional Authority, it is clear that the findings arrived at by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Food and Civil Supply are absolutely logical and legal. There are three findings of different authorities. Merely because the petitioner was holding the licence since 12 to 13 years by itself would not pose him to be innocent and honest trader/fair price shop licence holder. For example, at one place, the petitioner has accepted that against the receipt of 7000 Ltrs. of kerosene, he has shown sale of 7200 Ltrs. of Kerosene and this, according to the petitioner, was nothing but slip of pen. This layman excuse normally should not be accepted by any authority so far as the public distribution system is concerned. In the same way, at one place, he has shown 200 Ltrs. of kerosene more than the actual, meaning thereby, the dealing of the present petitioner was not found to be transparent. Mistakes were not bona fide and, therefore, the authorities have reached to the findings. 5. The law, at present, is settled that party who feels that he has not been given an opportunity of being heard, can be heard at any stage. The petitioner could have convinced this Court from the strength of papers, including the written explanation given by him, that non-supply of papers has resulted into serious prejudice and injustice to him. 6. In the facts and circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Petition dismissed.