LAKHU VIRA AYAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Niraj Soni, Ld. AGP waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. At the request of learned advocates for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The sole grievance of the petitioner is that though his revision application filed before the Joint Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Gujarat i.e., respondent no. 1 challenging the order of respondent no. 2 dated 28/4/2006 whereby the licence granted in favour of the petitioner to run the fair price shop has been cancelled, is pending for final disposal, the stay of the impugned order of the Collector i.e., respondent no. 2 which was initially granted, has been vacated by respondent no. 1 by order dated 25/6/2007. It transpires from the petition that the petitioner has been running fair price shop for the last 45 years. However, upon inspection carried out on 9/3/2006 by respondent no. 3, certain irregularities were found. In view of the same, the licence was initially suspended for 90 days by order dated 11/3/2006. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal. But respondent no. 1 issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain why his licence should not be cancelled. Ultimately by order dated 3/10/2006 respondent no. 3 cancelled the licence to run fair price shop. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal being Appeal No. 8 of 2006, which was dismissed by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 6-7/3/2007. Against the same, revision application has been preferred before respondent no. 1. By order dated 22/5/2007 respondent no. 1 stayed the order cancelling the licence of the petitioner for one month and fixed the hearing of the case on 22/6/2007. While passing the said order i.e., order dated 22/5/2007 respondent no. 1 kept in view the averments made in the application praying for stay that the petitioner was aged 70 years and that there were certain technical irregularities. However, by subsequent order dated 25-26/6/2007 respondent no. 1, after hearing the learned advocates for the petitioner, vacated the stay observing that prima-facie there were no good grounds for grant of stay. Hence, this petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. AM Parekh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Niraj Soni, Ld. AGP for respondents. It is submitted by Mr. Parekh that when initially the stay was granted, there was no reason for respondent no. 1 to vacate it on a later date even when the revision application is pending. Mr. Soni has, however, tried to support the said order.