SIDDHARDH S PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Siddharth, son of Shirishchandra Patel has filed these writ applications being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Mamlatdar cum District Supply Officer, confirmed in appeal by the Collector and approved by the Secretary on 2.3.94.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for disposal of these petitions are that a license was granted by City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad to one Shirishchandra Patel as proprietor to carry on business of a Gas Agency for and on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation. The said Shri Shirishchandra expired on 19.4.90, therefore, an application was made by the present petitioner for substitution of his name in the license and renewal of the same in his name. During pendency of the said application, the petitioner carried on the business. On 16.7.92, Supply Inspector made an inspection and found illegalities as are detailed in Annexure:F. The illegalities showed that the petitioner had not made an application for changing the name, instead of charging Rs. 78/ -, the petitioner was charging Rs. 80/ - from the consumer, refills were not supplied in time and refills were supplied in haphazard manner, supply register was not maintained in accordance with the rules and the stock position was not shown on the board which was required to be exhibited on the main gate of the Agency. It was also informed that at the time of the inspection, statement of the Manager namely Shri Vijaybhai Rammanohar Patel was recorded and he had made certain admissions. The petitioner, through the said Vijaybhai Patel filed replies but did not make any application for supply of documents on which the respondent authorities were placing their reliance nor he required them that copy of the statement of the said Manager be supplied to him in view of the fact that the Manager had filed an affidavit before the Mamlatdar cum District Supply Officer stating therein that his statements were not recorded. He also did not make any application to the Mamlatdar cum District Supply Officer that in view of the disputed questions of facts, he be allowed to lead evidence. He felt content with the allegations made in the show cause notice, his reply and alleged affidavit of the Manager. After hearing the parties, the Mamlatdar cum District Supply Officer found that in view of the irregularities, license could not be transferred in favour of the present petitioner, he accordingly cancelled the license.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the same, the petitioner through his Manager, took up the matter before the Collector in appeal, but as the appeal was dismissed, he filed revision application before the Deputy Secretary, who dismissed the same on 2.3.94. The petitioner is now before this Court.