VIHAJI KESHARSING CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come with the case that he was running a fair price shop with a licence for the last 30 years. Earlier, the fair price shop's licence was only for foodgrains, sugar and edible oils etc. and in the year 1997, the same was extended to kerosene also. When the shop was inspected by way of surprise checking on 30th July 1998, the position of the stock was taken and later on a show cause notice dated 4th September 1998 was issued to the petitioner. In this show cause notice, the following irregularities were pointed out.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the copies of the statements of these two persons, namely, Ghanchi Gasa Madha and Bra Gordhan Amra had not been given to the petitioner. He has also submitted that no irregularity was found in the stocks with regard to other commodities and the only allegation in the show cause notice with regard to the other commodities was that the samples had not been displayed in such a manner that the public could see it. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Clause 8 of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 provides for suspension or cancellation of licence for contravention of order or licence and according to this Clause, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the licence holder, the licence may be cancelled or suspended with regard to one or more essential articles by an order of the Licensing authority in writing. Learned Counsel has argued that so far as the articles other than kerosene are concerned, nothing was found against the petitioner and therefore, while passing the order, if at all the licence was to be cancelled, it should have been cancelled only with regard to the item of kerosene and the same should not have been cancelled in its entirety. It has also been argued with reference to the inspection note dated 30th July 1998 made in the visit book that the stocks of APL Chhokha was correct and there was no shortage and certain advisory instructions had been given to him. It is submitted that not displaying the samples so as to be visible to the public was a minor technical objection and nothing serious has been found against the petitioner with regard to the items other than kerosene.

(3.) Learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader has pointed out that the authorities have mentioned that it was futile to expect fair distribution from the petitioner, that in past also, he has been punished in two cases and looking to his past history, he was habitual of such irregularities. The Licensing authority has mentioned in its order that the petitioner was charging high rates from the poor people and was selling all the commodities in black market and therefore, it was futile to expect fair distribution from the petitioner. The people of the village had also expressed that the petitioner was a head strong person and was making wrong entries in the Cards and therefore, in public interest, the shop should not be allowed to run. Against this order dated 25th September 1998, passed by the Licensing authority, District Supply Officer, Banaskantha, at Palanpur, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Banaskantha, at Palanpur, and that appeal has been decided by the order dated 30th October 1998. It is submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was allowed to run the fair price shop for commodities other than kerosene. Aggrieved from the order dated 25th September 1998, passed by the Licensing authority and the order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha, at Palanpur on 30th October 1998, the petitioner approached the State Government by way of revision and that revision application has also been rejected by the Government on 22nd February 1999. Aggrieved from these three orders passed by the Licensing authority, Collector, Banaskantha and the State Govt. the present petition has been filed.