Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/19781/2007 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 19781 of 2007
======================================
FAROOKBHAI
A MANSURI
Versus
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
======================================
Appearance
:
MR HR PRAJAPATI for the
Petitioner
Ms Falguni Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA
Date
: 08/08/2007
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner has challenged order dated 7/9th July 2007
passed by respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.36 of 2007
whereby respondent No.1 has confirmed order passed by respondent No.2
dated 3rd March 2007 by which respondent No.2 has
confirmed order dated 26.12.2006 passed by respondent No.3 cancelling
the licence and the authorisation granted in favour of the
petitioner. The petitioner was granted licence to run fair-price
shop in the month of March 2006 on the basis that he being badly
affected person during communal riots. Subsequently, the Scheme
known as NFFW Scheme was introduced where under the workers or
labourers were issued coupons and in lieu of wages they could obtain
wheat from fair-price shops on the basis of such coupons. The
petitioner was also entrusted with this task. It appears from
the record that the petitioner was required to get the supply of
wheat from the godown in-charge of the Mamlatdar. In the month of
August 2006 the petitioner was supposed to procure the wheat from the
go-down. He, however, did not go for the reason that he was not well
and instead his father had gone. His father, however, felt uneasy
and hence he returned leaving the tempo in-charge one Wahid and
Fazal. According to the petitioner, they were asked to deliver the
wheat at the fair-price shop of the petitioner. It appears from the
record that instead of delivering the wheat at the shop it was being
taken to Himatnagar Market Yard. On the way, the vehicle was
intercepted and the fraud was detected. After making departmental
enquiry it was learnt that the petitioner was also hand in glove in
this fraud. The Mamlatdar has, therefore, launched prosecution
against the petitioner and aforesaid two persons. It is the case of
the petitioner that it was the Mamlatdar and aforesaid two persons,
i.e., Wahid and Fazal who conspired together to dispose of the wheat
directly by selling it in the Himatnagar Market Yard. However, the
authorities below have found no substance in this allegation. There
is definite finding given by respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 that the
petitioner was very much involved in this fraud. Hence, the licence
and authorisation have been cancelled.
I
have heard Mr Prajapati for the petitioner and Ms Falguni Patel,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. Mr
Prajapati has submitted that the Mamlatdar in collusion with Wahid
and Fazal tried to dispose of the wheat meant for the labourers and
the petitioner has been made a scapegoat. He has further submitted
that respondent No.3 has no power to cancel the licence. As against
that, Ms Patel has supported the orders passed by the authorities
below. I have considered the facts carefully and also the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the
second submission of Mr Prajapati is concerned, it hardly impresses
me because the authority which has a power to grant licence has power
even to cancel it. It is no use in saying that there is no
provision which empowers him to cancel the licence. So far as the
submission based on facts is concerned, it cannot be entertained
herein because, all through out, the concurrent findings show that
the petitioner was very much involved in the conspiracy and fraud.
In view of the same, the decision taken by respondent No.3 in
cancelling the licence and authorisation is just and proper. This
petition has no merits. Hence, it is dismissed in limine.
(Akshay
H Mehta, J.)
*mohd
Top