Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2443/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2443 of 2009
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13015 of 2009
With
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13385 of 2009
=============================================
RENUKABEN
ASHOKBHAI KUMBAVAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
BHABHUBHAI
JIVABHAI RAJANI & 2 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance :
MR
GAURAV K MEHTA FOR APPELLANTS
MR
PP KASVALA FOR R-1
GOVERMENT
PLEADER FOR STATE
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 01/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
The
appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned
Single Judge whereby allotment of fair-price shop in favour of first
respondent was upheld in view of the fact that the first respondent
is more qualified than the appellant.
The
grievance of the appellant is that 10% priority which was required to
be given to women candidates against each category was not followed.
Referring to Clause 5.1.6 of Pandit Deendayal Grahak Bhandar Yojna,
it was submitted that 10% priority was not given to socially and
educationally backward class unemployed women in the Taluka
concerned.
From
the record it appears that original allotment was made in favour of
the appellant but such allotment was set aside by the Court and the
matter was remanded to the authorities. After number of litigations,
the Appellate Authority allotted fair-price shop in favour of the
first respondent, which was upheld by the learned Single Judge, first
respondent being more qualified.
So
far as 10% priority to the women candidate is concerned, it has been
brought to our notice that out of 26 fair price shops falling within
the category of socially and economically backward class, 4 women
candidates have been allotted fair-price shops, which is more than
10%. In these circumstances, interference with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge is not called for. There is no merit.
Appeal is dismissed. Interim order granted earlier is vacated.
Civil Application is also dismissed. No costs.
(S.J.
MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.)
(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)
[sn
devu] pps/mohandas
Top