GOHIL PARVATSINH CHIMANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : -

(2.) Mr. P.V. Patadia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has raised the only grievance that the authorities have not applied its mind to the real controversy involved in the petition and the authority while passing the impugned order ought to have gone into the validity of the certificate in view of the averments contained in para 4.4. of the petition and then left if to the discretion of the Court.

(3.) While examining the issue, it has been found that the grievance of the petitioner has been dealt with by the validly constituted committee consisting of five members and after considering every material and after extending opportunity, a specific conclusion is arrived at which is reflecting in para 8 and 9 of the impugned decision. Reading of the entire order as a whole in the context of the grievance raised by the petitioner, this Court see no reason to disturb the finding of fact which has been arrived at by examining the record at great length. An exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in absence of any perversity or manifest illegality, the view taken by the authority may not be lightly substituted on the basis of the very same material. Here, in the present case,. the learned advocate for the petitioner has not pointed out any distinguishable circumstance which may warrant this Court to disturb the findings arrived at by the authority in the impugned order.