EKTA CONSUMERS COOPERATIVESTORES LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. H. R. Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. D. S. Pandit, learned AGP for the respondents. Rule. Ms. Pandit, learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THE petitioner-Ekta Consumers Cooperative Stores Limited, has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 26th April, 2005 passed by the District Supply Officer, Mehsana, respondent no. 3, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause-8[1] of the Gujarat Essential Articles [licensing Control and Stock Declaration] Order, 1981 and the subsequent orders confirming the finding of the District Supply Officer by the Collector as first appellate authority and the State Government being the revisional authority. The decisions/actions have been challenged on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition.

(3.) MR. Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly concentrated his arguments on the point that the first order passed by the District Supply Officer dated 26th April, 2005, being No. SP/parvana Inquiry/seizure/case No. 119,120/2004 is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is violative of principles of natural justice being based on vague notice to show cause issued to the petitioner society, and that the petitioner was not supplied with all relevant documents sought to be relied upon by the authority while passing the order which can be said to be prejudicial to the petitioner-Society. It is submitted that all the three orders may be quashed, because, two orders of the appellate authorities simply confirmed the finding recorded by the first authority, that is, District Supply Officer. It is submitted that when the first order is found violative of the principles of natural justice, none of the subsequent appellate orders can stand in the eye of law and therefore, the matter should be remanded back to the first authority, that is, the District Supply Officer directing him to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to decide the issue afresh keeping in mind all the relevant aspects including the fact that so-called confessional statement of the servant of the society was retracted subsequently by him. Mr. Prajapati has placed reliance on three decisions, namely, [i] Judgment dated 19. 10. 2000 passed by this Court [coram:h. R. Shelat, J. ] in Special Civil Application No. 7994 of 1998; [ii] Judgment dated 27. 11. 2001, passed by this Court [coram:d. A. Mehta, J. ] in Special Civil Application No. 3109 of 2001 and [iii] Judgment dated 23. 2. 2005 passed by this Court [coram:d. N. Patel, J. ] in Misc. Civil Application No. 1101 of 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 7346 of 1997, and has submitted that the ratio propounded by the above decisions will squarely help the petitioner. It is submitted that the supply of documents by detaining authority to each detenue would be from different angle. Such bunch of papers considered by the District Supply Officer against a person if are not supplied to him, then, the said documents are extraneous and unknown to the said person to whom District Supply Officer has served the notice and such action can be said to be prejudicial to the said person served with the notice to show cause by the District Supply Officer. It is clear from the record that specific demand was raised that bunch of papers relied upon by the authority may be supplied to the petitioner so that they can make out a case in appropriate manner. There are number of documents on the record to show that the petitioner society itself was not satisfied with the working method of the employee as Manager of the society and therefore, it was possible for the petitioner to convince the authority that the license of the society can be continued and wrong-doer, if need be, can even be prosecuted under the Scheme of the Essential Commodities Act. In short, say of Mr. Prajapati is that considering the ratio of the decision of this Court [coram: H. R. Shelat, J. ] rendered in the case of Harnarayan Bhaiyalal Sahu Vs. State of Gujarat, while dealing with Special Civil Application No. 7994 of 1998 on 19. 10. 2000, the orders under challenge may be quashed and appropriate directions may be given to the District Supply Officer to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Society after supply of documents which, he as authority, intends to rely upon.