SCA/7402/1996 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7402 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= SURESHKUMAR J THAKKAR - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HR PRAJAPATI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 14/09/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.10.94 passed by the District Supply Officer, Mehsana, by which the said SCA/7402/1996 2/4 JUDGMENT Authority was pleased to cancel the licence of the petitioner to run a fair price shop. Further revision also came to be rejected. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court by way of this petition. 2. One truck carrying controlled items was intercepted by the authorities on 13th September 1994. The consignment contained several edible items including those belonging to the petitioner. It was the say of the authorities that the vehicle was not heading for its ultimate destination. This was the main ground on which show cause notice came to be issued. It is, of course, true that there were two other allegations also levelled against the petitioner regarding the fair price shop not being run by him personally and the some other breaches, nevertheless, it is not in dispute that the irregular movement of the stock was the main allegation against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner filed reply and opposed the proposal contained in the show cause notice. The authority, however, held all the three charges proved against the petitioner and passed the order. 4. At the outset, learned advocate Shri Prajapati appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in a parallel proceedings for confiscation of seized goods, the Government has taken a different view and by an order dated 10.4.97, held that the defence of SCA/7402/1996 3/4 JUDGMENT the petitioner that the truck driver was unwell and that therefore he had taken a detour is believable. It was observed in the said order that no intention to sell the stock to unauthorized person is borne out from the record. On that ground, the Deputy Secretary quashed the confiscation ordered against the petitioner, but to ensure that no such irregularities takes place in future, imposed fine to the extent of 25 per cent of the value of the goods. 5. From the record, it appears that the petitioner had moved a draft amendment to bring the said order of the State Government on record. However, through oversight, the amendment was neither pressed nor granted. Though formal amendment has not been granted, it is not in dispute that the State Government has substantially exonerated the petitioner by order dated 10.4.97 regarding the ground of irregular movement of the truck carrying his goods in proceedings pertaining to confiscation of the goods. That being so, contradictory factual finding in the present proceedings cannot be sustained. 6. Learned AGP Ms.Trusha Patel, however, was justified in pointing out that this was not the sole ground on which the authorities passed the impugned orders. However, when the main basis for cancellation of the fair price licence of the petitioner gets knocked out, it would be necessary that the entire issue be reconsidered. What SCA/7402/1996 4/4 JUDGMENT ultimate order should be passed would be for the Government to decide, at the first instance. 7. For that above purpose, by quashing the order passed by the State Government in the Revision Application on 26.3.96, the proceedings are remanded to the Revisional Authority for decision in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made herein-above. Till then, The interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue. 8. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)