Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/22906/2006 2/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22906 of 2006
=========================================================
BHANUBEN
HIMMATBHAI GEVARIA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
HL
PATEL ADVOCATES for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
Mr C. B Upadhyay Asstt. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
MR AM PAREKH for Respondent(s) : 2,
NOTICE UNSERVED for
Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 23/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner prays for a direction to quash and set aside the impugned
order dated 7th October 2006.
2. On
11th September 2004, applications were invited by the
office of Collector, Amreli for allotment of Fare Price shop in
respect of various villages mentioned in the schedule to the said
notice. One of the criteria is that the applicant should be a local
resident of a particular village in respect of which he or she
applies.
3. The
petitioner had cleared S.S.C. Examination and has also passed 11th
standard and is a handicapped lady and her husband is also
handicapped. The petitioner fulfills all eligibility criteria for
the allotment of Fare Price Shop. Considering the qualifications
of the petitioner, Taluka Civil Supply Advisory Committee
recommended the name of the petitioner for allotment of a Fare Price
Shop.
4. Respondent
No. 4 who was one of the applicants for the allotment of Fare Price
Shop, filed an Appeal against not allotting Fare Price Shop to her.
The said Appeal was decided by the impugned order dated 7th
October 2006. By the said order, the order of the Collector dated
2nd March 2005 was set aside and it has been decided to
allot the Fare Price Shop to respondent No. 4.
5. The
hearing of appeal took place on different dates. The petitioner was
directed to attend the hearing only on 2nd September
2006. On behalf of the petitioner, her husband attended the office
of Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department. The petitioner
was asked whether the Fare Price Shop was running smoothly or not
and whether there were any complaints to which he has replied
satisfactorily. The petitioner received the impugned order whereby
the order of Collector dated 2nd March 2005 is cancelled.
6. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed
by the authority is illegal and arbitrary. According to him the
petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 75% and
therefore deserves preference in allotment of Fare Price Shop and the
Deputy Secretary has not given any reason for not accepting the
recommendation of Taluka Civil Supply Advisory Committee and District
Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. He submitted
that the respondent no.4 is not a local resident of village Nesadi
and therefore she should not have been granted the license for Fair
Price Shop.
7. Mr.
Upadhyaya, learned AGP, appearing for the respondent Government
submitted that the the petitioner and the respondent no.4 were at
serial no.1 and 2 respectively. As per the procedure the Mamlatdar
has given positive opinion in respect of respondent no.4 whereas the
petitioner is concerned the opinion was negative. He submitted that
the Deputy Secretary has considered all the documents as well as the
provisions of the scheme and ultimately came to the conclusion that
the respondent no.4 being more meritorious and local resident of
village Nesadi, is entitled to get fair price shop and therefore the
order passed by the authority is just and proper.
8. Heard
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the
documents on record. After the applications were proceeded, as per
the Taluka Level Committee the petitioner was given priority no.1 and
the respondent no.4 was placed at serial no.2 in the priority list.
Thereafter has given ins personal opinion in respect of all the
applicants. The Mamlatdar has given positive opinion in respect of
respondent no.4, whereas so far as the petitioner is concerned, the
opinion of the Mamlatdar was negative. The respondent no.4 is a
graduate, whereas the petitioner is HSC. According tot he Government
resolution the Graduate candidate would get priority between graduate
and HSC candidate. The Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies has
considered the employment exchange certificate produced by the
respondent no.4 as well as the certificate dated 6.10.2004 issued by
the Union Bank of India, the experience certificate dated 5.10.2004
issued by Rajeshbhai Mavjibhai Virani as well as other documents
produced by the respondent no.4. From these documents it was found
that the respondent no.4 is more meritorious candidate and
accordingly the order came to be passed. Further there is nothing on
record to show that the respondent no.4 is not a resident of village
Nesadi.
9. In
the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in this petition.
This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no
order as to costs.
10. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner has made a request to continue the
interim relief for a further period of four weeks. In that view of
the matter the stock which is already given tot he petitioner will be
allowed to be distributed upto 1st March 2010 and no
further stock will be given tot he petitioner.
(K.S.
Jhaveri,J.)
mary//
Top