Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14103/2004 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14103 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
======================================
N.B.PARMAR
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & others
======================================
Appearance :
MR
PINAKIN M RAVAL for Petitioner
Mr.
Neeraj Soni, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondents
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 18/09/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1 This
petition under Article 226 is preferred by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 17th September 2004 passed by the
Revisional Authority confirming the order dated 24th
October 2003 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated
8th August 2003 passed by the District Supply Officer,
Godhra, at Panchmahals, cancelling license of fair-price shop of the
petitioner.
2 On
3rd June 2003, the Supply Inspector from the Office of
the District Supply Officer, Godhra, District Panchmahals, visited
the fair-price of the petitioner and found several irregularities,
namely:
[i]
the petitioner did not follow the terms and conditions of the
license;
[ii] the
petitioner illegally disposed of essential commodities to be
supplied to the ration-card holders of below poverty line [BPL];
[iii]
distribution of wheat and rice to the ration-card holders of BPL was
less than the actual shown.
[iv]
kerosene was disposed of by preparing duplicate bills,which were
not part of the original bill book.
[v]
the stock was not shown correctly in the stock and sale register.
2.1 Thus,
it is found by the Supply Inspector that the petitioner, being a
licensee of the fair-price shop, had acted contrary to the terms and
conditions of the license
2.2 Before
the license came to be cancelled, by order dated 10th
June 2003, the District Supply Officer suspended the license of the
petitioner for a period of sixty days.
3 The
petitioner submitted explanation dated 24th July 2003,
inter alia, contending that the irregularities were of minor nature.
It is further contended that the petitioner bona-fidely committed
certain mistakes and inadvertently essential commodities sold were
not correctly recorded in the sale and stock register. Therefore, a
request was made to the District Supply Officer to restore the
license by invoking the order of suspension of license. However, the
District Supply Officer, Panchmahals, at Godhra, after considering
the charges levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice,
reply and explanation submitted by the petitioner and, after
affording an opportunity of hearing, found that, on earlier occasion
also, the petitioner had committed similar irregularities and he was
dealt with leniently by recovering Rs.500/- from the deposit and also
the value of disposed of essential articles, with a warning that, in
future, if the petitioner continues to commit irregularities, he
would be dealt with severely, and cancelled the licence to run the
fair-price shop granted to the petitioner by order dated 8th
August 2003.
4 Being
aggrieved by the order dated 8th August 2003 passed by the
District Supply Officer, Panchmahals, at Godhra, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Panchamhals, at
Godhra, contending that the order passed by the District Supply
Officer impugned in the appeal was very harsh and, therefore, was
required to be quashed and set aside. However, considering all the
relevant aspects and after hearing the petitioner, the District
Collector found that the irregularities committed by the petitioner
were proved by evidence on record and held that there was no reason
to reverse the order dated 8th August 2003 passed by the
District Supply Officer. Accordingly, the District Collector passed
order dated 24th October 2003 confirming the order of the
District Supply Officer.
5 Being
aggrieved by the order dated 24th October 2003 passed by
the District Collector, the petitioner filed Revision Application
before the Revisional Authority. It was contended by the petitioner
that the orders passed by both the authorities below are illegal and
violative of principles of natural justice. On merit, it was
contended that irregularities were not grave in nature and, due to
inadvertence and negligence on the part of the petitioner, certain
record was not maintained by him correctly. It was further contended
that there was no complaint on behalf of the ration-card holders or
less-supply of essential commodity and the reliance on earlier
irregularities had no relevance and, therefore, a request was made
before the Revisional Authority to restore the license of the
petitioner.
6 The
Revisional Authority considered the submissions made and contentions
raised by the petitioner in detail and, after hearing the petitioner,
passed a reasoned order. It was found by the Revisional Authority
that the irregularities found on the visit of the Supply Inspector
were based on documentary evidence and wheat, rice and kerosene were
found to have been disposed of by the petitioner illegally and the
commodities, which are essential in nature meant for ration-card
holders of BPL, did not reach them. Therefore, after considering the
afore-mentioned facts, the orders passed by the Authorities below
were confirmed by the Revisional Authority by order dated 17.9.2004.
7 Learned
counsel for the petitioner has contended that all the three
authorities below committed illegality in as much as the impugned
orders were in violation of provisions of the Act and the Rules and
also against the principles of natural justice. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, when the license was suspended
for a period of 60 days and the petitioner was kept out of business,
that itself was sufficient punishment for the irregularities of minor
nature. It was further submitted that, since the object of the scheme
is to provide employment to the uneducated youth, the petitioner may
be given one more opportunity to run fair-price shop, so that he can
eke out his livelihood. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner
can be imposed with a minor punishment of a fine and the respondents
may be directed accordingly.
8 Heard
the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and
perused the record.
9 Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is preferred
by the petitioner against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by
the three authorities below, namely, the District Supply Officer, the
District Collector in appeal and the Deputy Secretary of State of
Gujarat in revision and there is no illegality committed by them
apparent on the face of it in passing the impugned orders. Therefore,
it is not possible for this Court to accept the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the irregularities committed
by the petitioner were of minor nature and, therefore, a lesser
punishment can be imposed in exercise power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India
10 It
is trite that power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
can be exercised when there is illegality in decision making process
by the authorities below and when the order is arbitrary,
unreasonable or violative of principles of natural justice in the
back-drop of the facts and circumstances of each case. A bare perusal
of the record clearly indicates that, upon visit by the competent
authority on 3rd June 2003, 14 irregularities were
noticed, out of which, seven irregularities were grave in nature
pertaining to illegal means of disposal of essential commodities
depriving BPL ration-card holders of their quota. Not only that, but
the correct record in the form of stock and sale registers was not
maintained and duplicate bills were prepared by the petitioner. The
above irregularities were found to be proved on the basis of the
documentary evidence produced before the authorities below and no
justifiable reasons were advanced by the petitioner and the
explanation rendered by him was found to be unacceptable. The above
concurrent finding of facts, according to this Court, appear to be
correct and are based on true appreciation of evidence produced
before the Authorities below. Not only that, on earlier occasion
also, when the petitioner was found committing irregularities, a
minor penalty of recovery of value of essential commodities disposed
of by the petitioner was imposed with a warning that, in future, if
he commits similar irregularities, he would be dealt with severely.
11 Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the
orders impugned in this petition are, in any manner, unreasonable,
arbitrary or violative of principles of natural justice or violative
of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. No
procedural irregularity is found to have been committed by the
Authorities below and the impugned orders have been passed by the
Authorities below after issuing show cause notice, considering the
explanation submitted by the petitioner and after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Considering the above,
there is no substance in any of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
12 No
other contention is raised.
13 In
the result, this petition fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged
with no order as to costs.
(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)
(swamy)
Top