SHANKARBHAI DEVJIBHAI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri R. J. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Vinay S. Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) THE petitioner by way of this petition has inter alia prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 05th June 2004 passed by the respondent no. 3-District Supply Officer; order dated 06th October 2004 passed by the respondent no. 2-Collector and the order dated 22nd November 2005 passed by the respondent no. 1-State. The petitioner has also prayed for restoration of his licence issued under the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 1981'), so far as villages Gunjala, Meghaliyasna and Chitrodapura of Taluka Visnagar, are concerned.

(3.) IT is contended by the petitioner that he had applied for licence under the Order, 1981 and he was issued the same by the competent authority bearing Licence No. 481 of 2000. It is contended that the said licence was valid upto 31st December 2004 and the said licence was in respect of the aforesaid three villages. It is the say of the petitioner that he was impeached for the irregularity committed by him in distribution of wheat under the scheme of Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna. As per this scheme, the labourers who work in this scheme were being given one coupon and by way of such coupon, such a labourer is entitled to get wheat to the tune of 5 kg. per day from the fair price shop. As per the say of the respondent-authorities on 11th November 2003, the irregularity in question was committed by the petitioner and the stock of wheat to the tune of 23. 10 quintals was not properly distributed amongst the said labourers and the petitioner had given the aforesaid entire stock to the Sarpanch of village Gunjala and it was delivered to the son of the said Sarpanch. The said stock of wheat was taken by the Sarpanch and his son in a tractor-trolley and the bills were prepared by the petitioner as per the names given by the said Sarpanch and his son on the letter-pad of Village Sarpanch. It is further submitted that on checking it was found that some of the labourers named in the said letter were not physically fit to work and some of them were not there in the village itself.