Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13406/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13406 of 2008
=========================================================
CHANDUBHAI
JESANGBHAI CHAUHAN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - THROUGH JOINT SECRETARY - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
HR PRAJAPATI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR VIPUL
MISTRY AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 11/11/2008
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.9.2008 passed by
the Joint Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department, State of
Gujarat by which representation of the petitioner is rejected.
If
the order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the learned Judge in Special
Civil Application No.12457 of 2004 is perused, the said order came
to be passed at the request of the learned counsel for the
petitioner to make a representation to the respondent authorities on
the question of quantum of punishment since according to learned
counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was physically handicapped
and to see that whether there is any scope for the respondent
authority to consider the case of the petitioner for lesser
punishment.
The
impugned order, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, is
de void of reason and the contentions raised by the
petitioner in the representation on merit about non-supply of
relevant documentary evidence is not considered. Not only that but
according to learned counsel for the petitioner the order passed by
the learned Single Judge is not considered in its true spirit. Even
in the case of two other similarly situated persons, the concerned
authority has reduced the penalty and the petitioner being similarly
situated person ought to have been given similar treatment. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that considering overall
merit of the case and grounds raised in the petition it is a fit
case where impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the
case, following glaring irregularities came to be proved against the
petitioner and there are concurrent findings against the petitioner.
Upon
physical verification of the stock register 50 kgs. of sugar was
found in excess while closing stock was shown as zero and 19 kgs.
Rice was found less while closing stock was shown as zero. Whereas,
the closing stock of wheat was shown as 828 kgs, but against which
the stock was shown as zero. Thus, there was a shortfall of 728
kgs. of wheat. The authority has further considered the explanation
rendered by the petitioner and found confession in the form of the
statement that the petitioner had unauthorizedly sold rice at Rs.10
per kg. instead of Rs.3 per kg. which was to be distributed to the
card holders, who are below the poverty line. The authority found
all the above irregularities very serious. So far as the contention
of the petitioner about consideration of the authority in other two
cases is concerned, same cannot be pressed into service for
directing the authority to consider the case of the petitioner on
the same line, since consideration of quantum of punishment is
exclusively within the domain of the Executive authority and Court
has very limited scope of judicial review. Not only that but in one
or two cases if certain considerations are weighed with the
authority, same cannot be relied upon to get certain benefits on the
ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
Apex Court in the case of Style (Dress Land) v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh & Anr. Reported in (1997)7 SCC 89
held
that illegality cannot be perpetuated.
Extra-ordinary
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot be invoked in favour of the petitioner in view of the
concurrent findings of facts and decision taken by the authority
with regard to quantum of punishment is just and proper.
In
view of the above discussion, this Special Civil Application fails
and is hereby dismissed in limine.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.)
*pvv
Top