JAIPALSINH PRATAPSINH SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 11. 2. 2008 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging the order dated 29. 6. 1996 of the State Government. By the said order, the State Government dismissed the revision application against the order of the Collector, Panchmahals at Godhra and confirmed the order dated 21. 9. 1994 of the District Supply Officer, Godhra cancelling the fair-price shop licence for distribution of kerosene and forfeiting the deposit of Rs. 750/ -.

(2.) THE appellant was granted fair-price shop licence for distributing kerosene. On 30. 6. 1994 and also on 1/2. 7. 1994, there was a surprise checking of the appellant's fair-price shop by the checking squad. As many as 21 irregularities were detected. The appellant was given a show-cause notice dated 30. 7. 1994 calling upon the appellant to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled. The appellant submitted his reply dated 16. 8. 1994. The District Supply Officer passed order dated 21. 9. 1994 cancelling the licence and forfeiting the deposit of Rs. 750/ -. The District Collector dismissed the appeal on 9. 11. 1994. The State Government dismissed the revision by order dated 29. 6. 1996. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal.

(3.) MR Mangukiya, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not present when the surprise checking took place on 30. 6. 1994 because he was busy securing admission for his daughter at Gandhinagar during the period from 27 to 30th June 1994. With a view to see that the card holders may not have to face difficulties on account of non-availability of the appellant, the card holders were supplied kerosene through the appellant's servant and the details were recorded in their respective cards. A list of such supplies was prepared and produced before the Inspecting Officer at the time of inspection. However, the authorities did not consider these findings properly and gave the findings against the appellant. It is submitted that apart from the above defence, the appellant had also submitted in the reply to the show cause notice that in order to maintain social relations, the appellant used to supply kerosene to card holders in excess of their entitlement, but no default was committed with any malafide intention. It is further submitted that the authorities relied on the statements of card holders without supplying the copies thereof to the appellant and, therefore, there was violation of the principles of natural justice.