CHIRAG JAGDISH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr Neeraj Soni, learned AGP waives service of Rule for the respondents. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged order passed by respondent No.1 in revision application dated 6th June 2007 whereby respondent No.1 has confirmed order passed by respondent No.2 dated 12.3.2006 by which respondent No.2 has confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 26.11.2005.

(3.) The allegation against the petitioner is that he is involved in an offence, which is registered as C.R.No.I 106 of 2005 at Mundra Police Station for the alleged commission of offences made punishable under Sections 209 read with Section 120B of the IPC and also under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is alleged that the petitioner who holds tanker bearing registration No.GJ 12W 7691 illegally procured diesel from other accused of the said case on 26th August 2005. It was found that diesel which is required to be sold to the fishermen of Bhadreshwar in Kutch District at a subsidized rate was being emptied in the aforesaid tanker of the petitioner from tanker No.GJ-12T-9677 instead of being taken to the pump for distribution to the fishermen. In view of the aforesaid lodging of the complaint and the petitioner's involvement in the offence his licence as an authorised dealer of IPB Company Limited has been cancelled. This was done by respondent No.3 by first issuing show-cause notice dated 27.11.2005, which was based on the material collected during the enquiry. It appears that the show-cause notice was issued after the petitioner was detained in judicial custody. In view of the same, the wife of the petitioner, Nilam Agrawal submitted an application which appears to have been received by the authority on 10th November 2005 requesting to furnish copies of the documents referred to in the said application to enable the petitioner to effectively defend his interest. Subsequently, the case was heard by respondent No.3. It also appears that before the hearing the request made on behalf of the petitioner was not acceded to and the copies were not supplied. Respondent No.3 cancelled the licence and forfeited the deposit amount by his order dated 26.11.2005. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No.2. The petitioner during the course of hearing submitted to respondent No.2 that copies of the documents mentioned and relied upon by the authority for issuance of the show-cause notice were requested to be supplied to the petitioner, but that has not been done and therefore the principles of natural justice have been violated. However, respondent No.2 did not accept the said argument and dismissed the appeal by order dated 12.03.2006 and confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3. Against the order of respondent No.2 petitioner preferred revision application before respondent No.1. It appears that the petitioner produced circular issued by the Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Gujarat to substantiate his submission that the documents referred to and relied upon by the authority while issuing the show-cause notice were required to be supplied to the petitioner. He also appears to have relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The order of respondent No.3, however, does not reflect any discussion on this aspect. He dismissed the revision application and confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3. Hence, this petition.