RABARI HARTANBHAI JESANGBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms. Falguni Patel, Ld. AGP and Mr. AM Parekh, learned advocate waive service of rule on behalf of respective respondents. At the request of the learned advocates for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner herein has challenged order dated 3/12/206 passed by respondent no. 1, whereby the allotment of fair price shop has been made in favour of respondent no. 4. The facts are that for starting a fair price shop at village Bhetachivata, an advertisement inviting applications was published and in response to the same, present petitioner as well as respondents no. 3 and 4 applied. By order dated 20/9/2005 respondent no. 2 made the allotment in favour of the petitioner. Against the same, respondents no. 3 and 4, who are husband and wife respectively preferred revision applications before respondent no. 1. They were numbered as Applications No. 259/2005 and 260/2005. Both these revision applications were disposed of by the interim order and revision application filed by respondent no. 4 was allowed. Hence this petition.

(3.) It is the say of the petitioner that the said order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Mr. RM Chhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner has put great emphasis on this submission. It is submitted by Mr. Chhaya that there were two revision applications filed before respondent no. 1 which were disposed of by common order dated 13/12/2006. He draws my attention to Annexure-A to the petition. It is the order passed by respondent no. 1. It reflects that there were two applications, namely Application No. 259/2005 and Application No. 260/2005 listed before respondent no. 1 for his decision. The order further shows that before respondent no. 1, during the course of hearing the petitioner had made a request for furnishing copies of the applications filed by respondents no. 3 and 4. It is also stated in the order that since the petitioner had not received copy of the appeal [application], the same was furnished to him on 12/10/2006. According to Mr. Chhaya, on that day the petitioner had received only copy of the revision application filed by respondent no. 3 and not of respondent no. 4. In support of his submission, he also draws my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no. 1, in particular the contents of para. 7 of the affidavit. In the said para., the Joint Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, has stated as under :-