Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/288920/2008 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2889 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
SANGITABEN
DALICHAND CHAVALA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BS BRAHMBHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR LR
PUJARI, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 & 2,
MR HR PRAJAPATI for
Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 21/07/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Rule.
Mr.Pujari, learned AGP waives notice for respondent Nos. 1 & 2
and Mr.Prajapati for respondent No.3.
With
the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides,
the matter is finally heard.
The
short facts of the case appears to be that the advertisement was
given for grant of authorisation for fair price shop. The
petitioner together with the other persons submitted the
application. The District Collector, Surat, ultimately had passed
the order dated 15.05.2005, whereby the authorisation was granted to
the petitioner. It appears that thereafter, pursuant to the order
passed by the Collector on 25.07.2005, the Mamlatdar passed the
order issuing authorisation and other consequential orders. The
respondent No.3 being aggrieved by the decision of the Collector,
preferred Appeal No.72/07 before the State Government. Thereafter,
the State Government heard the matter and passed the order on
06.02.2008, whereby the appeal is allowed and the order for grant of
authorisation in favour of the petitioner by the District Collector
is set aside and it is also ordered that the appellant be granted
authorisation. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has
approached to this Court by way of the present petition.
Heard
Mr.Brahmbhatt for the petitioner, Mr.Pujari, learned AGP for
respondents Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr.Prajapati for respondent No.3.
Upon
hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, it appears
that the principal contention of the petitioner is that without
giving any opportunity of hearing, the State Government has
exercised the appellate power and has allowed the appeal. Neither
Mr.Prajapati, nor the learned AGP are in a position to show that any
hearing was given to the petitioner or that the petitioner had
remained present and thereafter, on the date of hearing, the
opportunity was not availed of.
Under
these circumstances, the only conclusion can be recorded is that the
State Government has exercised the power without giving any
opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was the person in whose
favour the authorisation was granted and without giving opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner, the State Government could not
exercise the quasi judicial power. Therefore, such an exercise of
the power is breach of the principles of natural justice and cannot
be sustained in the eye of law.
In
the result, the impugned order passed by the State Government dated
06.02.2008 is quashed and set aside with the further direction that
the appeal shall stand restored to the file of the State Government.
The State Government shall give the opportunity of hearing to both
the sides and shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law as
early as possible preferably within a period of three months from
the receipt of the order of this Court.
Petition
is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly.
No order as to costs. D.S.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.)
*bjoy
Top