Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1374/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1374 of 2010
=========================================================
CHAUDHARI
MERAMBHAI HIRAJI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR
& 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
VL THAKKAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR CB UPADHYAYA
AGP for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 15/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the
respondent-authority not to allot a new fair price shop at Village
Chhapra (Dhanakwada) in pursuance of the Advertisement dated
03.01.2010 published in a local daily.
2. The
petitioner is an agriculturist and a resident of Village Haripura
(Dhanakwada), Taluka Diyodar, District Banaskantha. On 03.01.2010 the
respondent-authority published an advertisement in a local daily for
setting up a new fair price shop at Village Chhapra (Dhanakwada)
under the Pandit Deendayal Grahak Bhandar
scheme.
3. It
is the case of the petitioner that the decision of the
respondent-authority to establish a new fair price shop at Village
Chhapra (Dhanakwada) is contrary to the relevant Rules and
Regulations framed by the State Government from time to time and
therefore, the impugned decision taken by the respondent-authority
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP, who appears on
behalf of the respondent-authority, on service of advance copy of the
petition. From the record, it appears that a new fair price shop is
proposed to be set up at Village Chhapra (Dhanakwada). It is a policy
decision taken by the State Government after considering all the pros
and cons. It is by now well settled that in matters pertaining to
policy decisions, this Court should not substitute its opinion by
exercising its discretionary powers. Hence, this Court does not find
this to be a case wherein powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India could be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
5. Consequently,
the petition is summarily rejected.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*
Top