SCA/19384/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 19384 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA ====================================== 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 ? ====================================== RATILAL GIRDHARLAL THORIA Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT ====================================== Appearance : MR HR PRAJAPATI for the Petitioner MR Neeraj Soni, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA Date : 03/08/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Mr Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule. At the request of the learned SCA/19384/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today itself. The petitioner has filed revision application before the Joint Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumers Affairs Department, Government of Gujarat to challenge the order of the Collector, Ahmedabad dated 30th October 2006 cancelling the licence of the petitioner to run the fair-price shop. The said revision application has been numbered as 105 of 2006 and it is admitted, as can be seen from the intimation given to the petitioner dated 10th April 2007. However, the Joint Secretary of the aforesaid department by order dated 29.6.2007 /2.7.2007 has passed order refusing to grant stay of the order impugned in the revision application. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard Mr Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. Mr Prajapati has submitted that this Court has time and again observed that when the authority exercising the quasi-judicial power admits the proceedings, in ordinary circumstances, the stay of order impugned in those proceedings should be granted. In support of his submission, Mr Prajapati has drawn my attention to the orders passed by this Court, which are annexed as Annexure-D and Annexure-E to the petition. I have carefully perused them. Mr Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader has, however, tried to support the order passed by the Joint Secretary. The orders relied on by Mr Prajapati clearly show that in ordinary circumstances when the appeal or revision is entertained by the authority exercising the quasi-judicial powers it should stay the orders under challenge. In the instant case the order of the Joint Secretary does not give any specific reason as to why the stay has been refused despite the fact that the revision has been admitted. In SCA/19384/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT view of the same, this petition is required to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. The order impugned in revision application before the Secretary is stayed till the disposal of the revision application. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. (Akshay H Mehta, J.) *mohd