IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 68 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- KANTILAL AMBALAL THAKKAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR HR PRAJAPATI for Petitioner MS. HARSHA DEVANI, AGP, for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI Date of decision: 10/02/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT The petitioner challenges the order made by the State Government on 11.12.1998 at Annexure-C to the petition rejecting the revision application and confirming the orders of the Collector in appeal and the District Supply Officer by which the petitioner's licence under the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 and the authorisation to run fair price shop were cancelled. As many as 13 irregularities were noticed when the fair price shop of the petitioner was inspected on 9.1.1998. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.7.1998 as to why his licence / authorisation should not be cancelled to which the petitioner replied on 30.7.1998. Earlier the petitioner's licence was suspended for 90 days on 30.5.1998. The petitioner was also detained under the provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 which order was ultimately revoked on 26.5.1998. On 13.8.1998 after considering the reply given by the petitioner, the District Supply Officer cancelled the licence/authorisation. An appeal which was filed against it was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 21.9.1998 by the Collector. The revision application filed against that order has been rejected leading to the present petition. On going through the material on record, it is clear that the authorities below have come to a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner had committed irregularities which are noted in the revisional order. It is held that there was shortage noticed of various essential commodities on comparison of closing stock of 31.12.1997 and the stock register dated 6.1.1998. The petitioner had not written accounts for the intervening period to show as to how the missing stock was dealt with by him. On 9.1.1998 the petitioner had admitted in his statement that he had sold 20 quintals of wheat on 6.1.1998 at a higher rate in the open market. It was also found that there was no explanation forthcoming for non-production of bill book or the sales register in respect of kerosene. It was found that there was no account kept of the stock which was lifted by the petitioner on 6.1.1998 from the Government godowns. Even as regards, the wheat which was to be distributed above and below the poverty line, sales were not noted for 28.12.1997 and 29.12.1997. Moreover, though 42 quintals of wheat and 4 quintals of rice were received by the petitioner on 6.1.1998 they were not entered in the stock register. The petitioner was not keeping relevant record at the shop. The petitioner had not even maintained the list of sales transaction. From the material on record, the revisional authority found that the authorities below it were justified in holding that the petitioner had committed a breach of the provisions of clause 23 and 24 of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 and condition Nos. 4 and 9 of the licence and provisions of authorisation and that the orders made against the petitioner were fully justified. Under clause 8 of the Gujarat Essential Articles Order, 1981, if a licence holder contravenes any of the terms or conditions then without prejudice to any action that may be taken against him, his licence may be cancelled or suspended. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention raised by the petitioner that because he was earlier detained under the preventive detention law it would amount to double punishment if any order is made cancelling the licence. Detention under the preventive detention law is altogether a different matter and such a detention will not immune the detenu from cancellation of his licence for breach of the terms or conditions of the licence. Under clause 23 of the said Order the dealer or producer is required to maintain a register of daily stock of essential articles showing correctly, the opening stock for the day, the place from where and source from which it was received, stock delivered or otherwise removed and the closing stock of such essential articles in which he carries on business as dealer /producer. The dealer or producer, as far as possible, shall complete his accounts for the day immediately after closing his business for the day as provided by sub-clasue (2). As per condition Nos. 4 and 9 of the licence, a licence holder is required to maintain a register of daily accounts relating to a transaction or dealings of each of the articles showing correctly the opening stock, quantity received, quantity delivered or otherwise removed, closing stock on each day and is required to complete his accounts for each day as also to issue to every customer correct receipt or invoice giving particulars of the quantity etc. covered under the transaction. It is therefore clear that the revisional authority has on the basis of the material on record come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed breach of clause 23 and 24 of the said Order and condition Nos. 4 and 9 of the licence issued therein. There being no warrant for interference with the impugned order of the revisional authority, the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 00000 (pkn)