SANGITABEN DALICHAND CHAVALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. learned AGP waives notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Prajapati for respondent No. 3. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard.

(2.) THE short facts of the case appears to be that the advertisement was given for grant of authorisation for fair price shop. The petitioner together with the other persons submitted the application. The District Collector, Surat, ultimately had passed the order dated 15. 05. 2005, whereby the authorisation was granted to the petitioner. It appears that thereafter, pursuant to the order passed by the Collector on 25. 07. 2005, the Mamlatdar passed the order issuing authorisation and other consequential orders. The respondent No. 3 being aggrieved by the decision of the Collector, preferred Appeal No. 72/07 before the State Government. Thereafter, the State Government heard the matter and passed the order on 06. 02. 2008, whereby the appeal is allowed and the order for grant of authorisation in favour of the petitioner by the District Collector is set aside and it is also ordered that the appellant be granted authorisation. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by way of the present petition.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Brahmbhatt for the petitioner, Mr. Pujari, learned AGP for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Prajapati for respondent No. 3. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, it appears that the principal contention of the petitioner is that without giving any opportunity of hearing, the State Government has exercised the appellate power and has allowed the appeal. Neither Mr. Prajapati, nor the learned AGP are in a position to show that any hearing was given to the petitioner or that the petitioner had remained present and thereafter, on the date of hearing, the opportunity was not availed of.