LATABEN KHIMBHANDBHAI PIPRODIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter pertains to the grant of authorisation for Fair price shop in Gotalavadi area of the city of Surat. There are two competitors namely, the petitioner and the respondent No.4. The Advisory Committee at the level of Taluka has recommended for grant of authorisation of Fair Price shop in the area aforesaid in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of authorisation for the Fair Price shop in the area concerned was made on 26th May, 1987. Final agreement has also been sent by the respondent No.3 for authorisation of this Fair Price shop to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not permitted to run the Fair Price shop and on inquiry made, she came to know that the respondent No.4 had preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 in the matter and the respondent No.2 has granted the interim relief. In the appeal aforesaid, the respondent No.4 has not impleaded the petitioner as a party. The appeal filed by the respondent No.2 has been allowed by the Collector under its order dated 14th July, 1997. This order has been taken by the petitioner in the revision before the State Government. Prayer has also been made by her for grant of interim relief. Interim relief has been granted. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 and 3 for the reasons best known to them have not respected the interim relief granted by the State Government in favour of the petitioner. She made a complaint in this regard to the State Government. However, the petitioner filed special civil application No.6289/97 in this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 14th July, 1997 and in the alternative praying for direction to the respondent No.1 to immediately decide the revision application of the petitioner. The respondent No.4 also in his turn filed special civil application No.6214/97 challenging the interim order passed by the respondent No.1 in the revision application filed by the petitioner. Both these above special civil applications came to be disposed of by the Court under the order dated 29th August, 1997. The special civil applications were disposed of with direction to the State Government to issue notice of the revision application to the respondent No.4 and to decide the same within two weeks' from the date of receipt of writ of the order after hearing all the interested parties. After hearing all the interested parties, this revision application came to be rejected on 12th September, 1997. Hence, this special civil application.

(2.) Shri C.L. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Collector as a revisional authority is wholly perverse. In his submission, the Collector was the person who is the Chairman of the District Advisory Committee and as such being a biased person he has to give a decision against the petitioner in the appeal filed by the respondent No.4. Carrying this contention further Shri Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revisional authority has given decision in favour of the respondent No.4 on the ground that the District Advisory Committee's recommendation are to be accepted over the recommendations made by the Taluka Advisory Committee. Shri Soni urged that neither of the authorities i.e. the appellate authority and revisional authority as well as the District Advisory Committee has examined and considered the comparative merits of the petitioner and the respondent No.4 for excepting the claim for grant of authorisation for the Fair Price shop in the area concerned. Concluding his submissions, Shri Soni submitted that the District Advisory Committee acted only on the recommendations of the M.L.A. and the concerned Minister. There is no contribution of it nor it has cared, bothered and made any attempt to consider the comparative claims of these two candidates for grant of authorisation of the Fair Price shop. In his submissions, Shri Soni submits that even if it is taken that the authorisation of the Fair Price shop was for open category, it is permissible for the category of scheduled caste to apply for the same and her claim has to be considered on merits.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 contended that the authorisation was reserved for open category unemployed persons and the petitioner has been given the authorisation by the Taluka Advisory Committee by giving preference to her being a scheduled caste candidate. Shri Thakker submits that the authorisation for the Fair Price Shop is one of the modes of providing employment to educated unemployed persons by the State Government and the respondent No.4 stand on much higher footing for grant of authorisation of fair price shop in his favour as compared to the petitioner. The petitioner is though educated unemployed but being an unmarried woman is residing with her parents, Shri Thakker urges that it is nothing but only an act on the part of the family members of this lady to get authorisation for fair price shop for themselves. It has to be managed by the father or brother of the petitioner and not by herself. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 on being put by the Court is unable to satisfy that the comparative merits of the petitioner and the respondent No.4 has been considered by the respondent -District Collector in the appeal or the State Government in revision application or the District Collector as chairman of the District Advisory Committee or other members thereof. He also is unable to point out anything from the documents that any authority aforesaid has undertaken any exercise to find out the comparative merits of the petitioner and the respondent No.4 and to decide who is to be given the authorisation for fair price shop.