SOHANLAL TOLIRAM SANVARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only grievance that has been made in this petition to challenge the impugned order is that at the time of issuance of show cause notice calling upon the petitioner why his licence should not be cancelled, the respondent has not supplied the copies of the necessary documents, namely the panchnama, the statements of various persons which were recorded during the inquiry on the basis of which the show cause notice has been issued, etc. According to the petitioner, in absence of such documents, the petitioner has not been able to defend his interest effectively. According to him, the impugned order is, therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice.

(2.) IT appears from the record of the petition that the petitioner was having licence to run fair price shop near Government press in Anandpura locality in the City of Vadodara. On surprise checking, that was made on 16/7/2002, it was found that the petitioner had indulged into certain mal -practices and had committed various illegalities and irregularities. In view of the same, initial inquiry was made and on the basis of the same, show cause notice dated 12/9/2002 was issued. Thereafter, after holding the inquiry the authority cancelled the licence of the petitioner by order dated 7/10/2002. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority i.e., the Collector, Vadodara District. By order dated 13 -17/1/2003 the Collector observed that upon hearing the petitioner, it appeared that the petitioner had not received details of the transferred ration cards, the list of alleged bogus ration cards, etc. He, therefore, quashed the said order and remanded the matter for rehearing.

(3.) I have heard Mr. HR Prajapati, learned advocate for the petiti and Mr. Krunal D Pandya, Ld. AGP for the respondents. The sole submission that has been advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the respondents have not fully complied with the principles of natural justice in asmuch as despite the grievance made at the earliest about the non -supply of relevant documents, the respondents have not taken care to see that these documents were made available to the petitioner at the earliest so as to defend his interest effectively. According to Mr. Prajapati, admittedly at the initial stage, these documents were not made available and, therefore, respondent no. 2 had remanded the matter to respondent no. 3. Even at that stage, the petitioner did not receive copies of the relevant documents and, therefore, the petitioner was unable to fight out the case effectively.