NITUBEN RAJESHBHAI SAHARMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who has been unsuccessful in getting authorization to run Fair Price Shop, has challenged the order dated 23.4.2012, the decision dated 24.7.2012 passed by the respondent No.3 and the order dated 10.1.2013 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Gandhinagar as regards the grant of authorization in favour of respondent No.4 to run Fair Price Shop for Sarkhej Block S -2, Ahmedabad .

(2.) MR . B.A. Surati, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.4 is not falling under the criteria of permanent resident of the area for which the authorization to run the Fair Price Shop is granted, and also suppressed the material facts as regard her permanent resident in the City of Ahmedabad. The concerned authority has not properly dealt with and decided in detail the issue as regards permanent residence of respondent No.4. Mr.Surati, drew the attention of this Court to the Application Form of respondent No. 4, to point out that the fact about the marital status of respondent No.4 is not disclosed. Mr.Surati also drew the attention of the Court to the voters list of the State of Madhya Pradesh especially for the area where husband of the respondent No.4 has got employment and inclusion of the name of respondent No.4 in the said voters list with her husband. Mr.Surati submitted that this Court in some what identical facts in Special Civil Application No. 30238 of 2007 issued the direction to the concerned authority to inquire into the allegations as regards permanent residence of the person who was granted authorization to run Fair Price Shop. Mr.Surati, submitted that in the present case also, the petitioner has alleged in the petition that the respondent No.4 has not been residing in the area for which the authorization to run the Fair Price Shop is granted. Mr.Surati submitted that if the allegations, on inquiry, are found to be true that the authorization granted in favour of respondent No.4 is required be cancelled. Mr.Surati therefore, urged to direct the concerned authority inquire into such allegations and to find out as to whether respondent No.4 has her permanent resident in the area for which she has been given authorization to run the Fair Price Shop .

(3.) LEARNED Assistant Government Pleader Mr. P.P.Banaji submitted that though in the impugned order, the authority has considered the issue about the permanent residence of respondent No.4 however, since there are allegations made by the petitioner in the petition and some documents are placed in the petition in support of such allegations, it is for the concerned authority to go into such allegations to find out whether respondent No.4 has been permanent resident of the Ahmedabad City.