KANTHUBHA KHANAJI VAGHELA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dated 8.10.2003 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the licence as well as authorisation granted in favour of the petitioner to run fair price shop have been cancelled with immediate effect. The petitioner has also challenged the order requiring the forfeiture of Rs.5,000/-, which was placed with respondents as deposit.

(2.) The petitioner was allotted fair-price shop in the year 1986 and he was granted licence as well as authorisation to run the shop. During the period 20.2.2003 and 22.02.2003 certain irregularities were noticed and therefore show-cause notice dated 20.09.2003 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to show-cause on three items, namely, (1) why the authorisation to run the fair-price shop should not be suspended/cancelled, (2) why the deposit should not be forfeited, and (3) why the criminal complaint under incidental provisions of law should not be filed against him. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 7.10.2003 to the respondent no.3 containing the explanations with regard to the irregularities found during the inspection. Thereafter, respondent No.3 passed the order dated 8.10.2003 cancelling the licence as well as authorisation with immediate effect. It was challenged before the appellate authority i.e. respondent No.2, but the same was also dismissed by order dated 1.1.2004. Against the same, the petitioner preferred revision application before respondent No.1, which was dismissed by order dated 10.1.2005. Hence, this petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr H.R.Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr Neeraj Soni, learned AGP for the respondents. Mr Prajapati has advanced submission to the effect that there is inherent defect in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the resultant orders. He has submitted that while issuing the notice respondent No.3 has called upon the petitioner to submit explanation to only three items of the show-cause notice as stated herein above. There is no notice given for the cancellation of the licence. He, therefore, submitted that the mandatory provisions have not been complied with and therefore the proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside. As against that, Mr Neeraj Soni supported the impugned orders and has vehemently submitted that serious irregularities have been found by the authority they are within their bounds to cancel the licence as well as authorisation. According to him, the fair-price shop is meant for the benefit of the lower strata of the society and the petitioner has cheated them. Hence, no lenient view is required to be taken. He has, therefore, submitted that the petition be dismissed.