RAVINDRAKUMAR RAYSINH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-original petitioner seeking quashment of the order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1157 of 2015.

(2.) The facts, as emerging from the memo of petition, are that the respondent No.2 -Collector, Dahod, invited applications from local educated unemployed persons seeking allotment of fair price shop at Village Pipaliya, District Dahod. The applications so received were placed before the respondent No.4-Taluka Civil Supplies Advisory Committee. It appears that after necessary scrutiny, the respondent No.4-Taluka Civil Supplies Advisory Committee recommended the case of the appellant herein for allotment of fair price shop. Thereafter, the above recommendation, along with the applications of candidates, was forwarded to respondent No.3-District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee, Dahod for further action, who recommended the case of respondent No.5 herein for allotment of fair price shop by placing her name at serial No.1 of the priority list. The name of the appellant herein was placed at serial No.2 of such list. 2.1 Pursuant to such recommendation given by respondent No.3, the respondent No.2 passed the order dated 16.12.2014, whereby the fair price shop at Village: Pipaliya came to be allotted in favour of respondent No.5. Against such allotment, the appellant herein made a detailed representation to respondent No.1 herein vide letter dated 29.12.2014. It appears that no steps were taken by the respondent-authority on such objection. 2.2 Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein preferred writ petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.1157 of 2015. The said petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2015 whereby, the learned Single Judge has recorded the conclusion that the allegations made by the appellant herein in relation to allotment of fair price shop in favour of respondent No.5 has remained unsubstantiated and that the respondent No.5 has been rightly allotted the fair price shop. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the matter in its proper perspective. It was submitted that according to the policy framed by the Government for allotment of fair price shop, the basic requirement of the candidate concerned is that he /she should be a "local resident" and should be "educated unemployed". He contended that the very thrust of the policy is that the allotment should be in favour of a "local resident". However, the respondent No.5, in whose favour the allotment has been made is resident of District Vadodara and not local resident of District Dahod. Thus, the very basic requirement under the policy has been breached by the respondent-authority by making allotment in favour of respondent No.5.