SCA/7844/2001 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7844 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= RAJABHAI LEELABHAI MARU - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MRS SANGEETA PAHWA for M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS. DS PANDIT, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date : 18/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard. The petitioner is invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of the present petition. The petitioner has prayed for the SCA/7844/2001 2/4 JUDGMENT following main reliefs in the form of appropriate writ, order or direction:- “[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the decision taken by the respondent no.2 – District Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Advisory Committee, dated 1.9.2001 as being illegal, arbitrary, without application of mind, competence as also violative of Art.14 and 19[1] [g] of the Constitution of India. [B] Your Lordships be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the decision taken by the respondent no.2 – District Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Advisory Committee dated 1.9.2001, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition.” 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was given license to run fair price shop. However, on account of certain technical irregularities, same was cancelled and the authorities refused to entertain the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 7061 of 1998. Say of the petitioner was to be considered if he applied for license sympathetically by the authorities. Thereafter, in the month of December, 1998, the Taluka Advisory Committee resolved to grant license for fair price shop of Manavadar to the petitioner, being most eligible candidate available. However, the respondent no.2 did not take a decision for two SCA/7844/2001 3/4 JUDGMENT years and suddenly, it cancelled the decision taken by the Taluka Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. The petitioner, therefore, filed second petition being Special Civil Application No. 123 of 2001 challenging the said decision. This Court, vide, order dated 21st April, 2001 allowed the petition [Coram: Kundan Singh, J.] and directed the authorities to take a final decision on the basis of the recommendations made by the Taluka Committee. The District Civil Supplies Committee recommended the name of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not granted license turning down the recommendation made by the Committee and therefore, the present petition is filed. 3. During the course of the submissions, Ms. D.S. Pandit, learned AGP for the respondents has pointed out that from the record which is made available to her by the officer present in the Court, it appears that the petitioner is at present working as Clerk in the office of the Taluka Panchayat at Manavadar. So, perhaps, the petitioner may not have interest in continuing with the petition and on this ground alone, the petition can be dismissed. 4. Mrs. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that she has no specific instructions that the petitioner has received job and is, at present, getting regular salary from the government department. SCA/7844/2001 4/4 JUDGMENT 5. Having considered the totality, the present petition is ordered to be disposed of as no cause survives, as the petitioner has now got a govt. job in the office of Taluka Panchayat, Manavadar. 6. The petition, therefore, is dismissed for want of cause of action. However, it is observed that it will be open for the petitioner to revive the petition if the petitioner has not got appointment in Taluka Panchayat as alleged by the learned AGP. It is also clarified that the petitioner, if is interested in license, then, by resigning from the govt. job, which he has got at present, he can approach this Court for revival of this petition. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, is vacated. [C.K. BUCH, J.] pirzada/-