ARVINDBHAI CHIMANBHAI PADHIYAR Vs. SATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri H. R. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri vinay Pandya, learned Assistant Government pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Shri Premal Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3.

(2.) RULE. The formal service of notice of Rule is waived by Shri Vinay Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2; and the same is also waived by Shri Premal Joshi on behalf of respondent no. 3. The Rule is fixed forthwith on consent.

(3.) BY way of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction that the order dated 06th June 2007 passed by the respondent no. 2 may be held to be illegal, invalid and unfair, whereby the respondent no. 2 rejected the application of the petitioner for allotment of fair price shop at village runvad, Taluka and District Vadodara; and in the similar way, the order dated 19th september 2007 passed by the respondent no. 1-Appellate Authority rejecting the Appeal preferred by the petitioner herein being appeal No. 37 of 2007. The say of the petitioner is that the impugned orders are unjust, illegal and unfair, and run contrary to the guidelines of the Government and, therefore, the same resulted into violation of rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Of course, the impugned orders are challenged on various grounds, however, Shri prajapati has concentrated his arguments mainly on two grounds. He has submitted that though there was sufficient evidence on record with the District Advisory Committee and the respondent no. 2-Collector at the relevant point of time, the District Advisory committee, constituted for the purpose under the scheme i. e. Pandit Dindayal grahak Bhandar, and the respondent no. 2-Collector ignored the evidence as to the status of the present petitioner being a member of the community covered under the other backward classes known as Socially and Economically Backward Class (hereinafter referred to as 'the SEBC') and though the attention of the respondent no. 1 was drawn to the effect that after publication of the Notification on 28th March 2006 and prior to the date of allotment of fair price shop, on 05th June 2007, the respondent no. 3 had already married on 11th May 2006. So the change of her matrimonial status requires to be considered because the same has number of other consequences keeping in mind the scheme carved out by the respondent-State.