PATEL HARSHADBHAI RANCHHODBHAI Vs. COLLECTOR OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Challenge is made by the petitioner to the orders made by the respondents, Annexures 'B' and 'D', in this Special Civil Application.

(2.) The petitioner was having licence to sell foodgrain, sugar and edible oils, which has been granted to him under the provisions of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981. The petitioner was served with a notice under S.6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act) to show cause and explain as to why confiscation proceedings under S.6A of the aforesaid Act should not be started on the ground of certain irregularities having been committed by him, as per the report made by the Food and Supply Inspector on 31st August, 1984. In pursuance to the said show-ause notice, inquiry has been held and thereafter under the order dated 3-12-1984, licence granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent No. 1. Against this order of respondent No. 1, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 which has been dismissed under the order dated October 1985. These two orders have been impugned in this Special Civil Application by the petitioner.

(3.) The only contention made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Kalpana Brahmbhatt, is that the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent No. 1 without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as such, this order is bad in law. This point has been raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority in the memo of appeal and the same has also been pressed during the course of arguments in appeal but the appellate authority has not considered this aspect.