SHANTABEN GOKALDAS KOTECHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is arising out of the same subject matter, i.e. to stay cancellation of fair price shop license allotted to the petitioner. Such license was ordered to be cancelled in the wake of large scale wheat scandal for which criminal prosecution was also launched. Considering the common subject matter of the petition and identical submissions made, the present petition is taken up for joint disposal, with consent of learned Advocates for the parties. However, the facts are recorded from Special Civil Application No.6301/2019.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding a Fair Price License bearing No.R-40 and Agreement No.40 for a Fair Price Shop at Village Haripura, Taluka Kalyanpur, District Jamnagar. It is submitted that on account of the offence registered with Kalyanpur Police Station by the Local Crime Branch, Jamnagar for illegal sale of Wheat, the main accused - Shailesh alias Bholo Natvarlal Kotecha was arrested and apparently during the course of investigation, the Police found that the wheat which were subject matter of the Scam part of which was procured from the petitioner as well and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner were also instituted by invoking the provisions of The Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control And Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 [hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Control Order, 1981']. However, as provided under the provisions of the Control Order, 1981, the principles of natural justice were not followed as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the cancelling the license.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon Clause 8(1) of the Control Order, 1981 which provides for reasonable opportunity of hearing before the authority who passed the order of cancellation, in the present case, the District Supply Officer. He refers to the first order of District Supply Officer dated 14.03.2013 and submitted that though the District Supply Officer has referred to 9 various documents but none of these documents can be said to a notice or an opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing of the order.