MAHENDRABHAI SOMABHAI BRAHMBHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is challenging the order dated 15th February, 2002 passed by the District Supply Officer, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar; order dated 24th July, 2002 in Appeal No. 1 of 2002 passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar as well as the order dated 6th January, 2006 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar in Revision Application No. 56 of 2006 mainly on the ground that the documents which are extensively referred in the notice and relied upon by the District Supply Officer, Collector and Revisional Authority have not been supplied to the petitioner. Thus, the challenge is on the basis of the violation of principles of natural justice.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notice was issued by the concerned respondent authority to the petitioner in the month of January, 2002 wherein several allegations were levelled against the petitioner. On the basis of the statements recorded during the inquiry by the concerned respondent authority, the statements of customers which are referred to in the notice, which are more than three dozens in number, have not been supplied to the petitioner. While giving reply to the show cause notice, it was categorically mentioned that the statements upon which the the respondents are relying upon, have not been supplied. The reply given by the petitioner is dated 14th February, 2002 which is at Annexure "C" to the memo of the petition, wherein in paragraphs 3(4), 3(5)and 7, it has been averred that statements of witnesses have not been supplied to the petitioner. Similarly in the memo of Appeal No. 1 of 2002 before the Collector also, it was averred that statements referred to in the show cause notice as well as in the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Sabarkantha were not supplied to the petitioner. This contention has also been taken in the memo of the present petition that there is a breach of principles of natural justice. These statements ought to have been supplied to the petitioner so that proper reply can be given by the petitioner. Even before the Revisional Authority also, this contention was raised which has been brushed aside by observing that the petitioner could have asked for cross-examination of those witnesses. Unless statements are supplied to the petitioner, no question of cross-examination whatsoever arises. Thus, the Revisional authority, in para-6 of its order, has also relied upon the statements recorded by the concerned respondent authority while issuing notice and on the basis of these statements, the whole case has been decided against the petitioner. Thus, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kiron Oil Industries vs. District Collector, Jamnagar reported in 1996(2) GLR, 127 and it is submitted that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded to the District Supply Officer for its fresh decision, within stipulated time.

(3.) I have also heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Pandya who has submitted that looking to the nature of reply of the show cause notice given by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner was having full knowledge of the statements of witnesses. Nowhere in the memo of the petition, it is stated that these statements were not supplied to the petitioner. It is also submitted that there are consistent findings of facts and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the decision taken by the respondent authorities in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.