SCA/19777/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 19777 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE ====================================== 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 ? ====================================== BHABHLUBHAI JIVABHAI NAJANI Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & others ====================================== Appearance : MR DC SEJPAL for Petitioner Mr. Vipul Mistry, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 None for respondent No.4 ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 22/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1 By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 2nd June SCA/19777/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT 2007 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.11 of 2005 filed by respondent No.4, wherein, the said appeal filed by respondent No.4 is allowed and she is granted the fair price shop [Pundit Din Dayal Grahak Bhandar] for the village Medi, Taluka & District Amreli. 2 In pursuance of the public notice dated 11.9.2004, the petitioner and respondent No.4 applied for allotment of fair-price shop. By order dated 1st March 2004, the Collector allotted the fair-price shop to respondent No.4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State of Gujarat challenging the order dated 1st March 2004 of the Collector, which was allowed on 20.7.2006 and the petitioner was allotted the fair- price shop. Respondent No.4 filed Special Civil Application No.18628 of 2006 before this Court wherein, by order dated 27.11.2006, the Court [Coram: D.N. Patel, J.) remanded the matter back to respondent No.1 on the ground that the respondent No.4 was not given enough opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, respondent No.1 passed the order dated 2nd June 2007, which is impugned in the present petition. 3 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader. Though served, none appears for respondent No.4, despite several opportunities were afforded. 4 There are mainly three criteria for allotment of a fair price shop, namely, educational qualification,unemployment in spite of education and local inhabitance of the village. The Authority held that the petitioner is a local resident of the village and that the petitioner is better educationally qualified than respondent No.4. However, for the third criterion of being educationally employed, the Authority held that, since the petitioner has not produced certificate from the Employment Exchange in that regard, he cannot be held to be unemployed. The SCA/19777/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT petitioner produced certificate dated 25.5.2007 issued by the Talati/Sarpanch of village Medi certifying the petitioner as educationally unemployed person. Mr. Sejpal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has rightly relied upon the public advertisement dated 11.9.2004 in support of his submission that there is no specific requirement of production of certificate only from Employment Exchange. He also drew attention of the Court to identification card of the petitioner [Annexure “C”] issued by the Employment Exchange and submitted that the petitioner is already registered with the Employment Exchange since the year 1996 but in view of the advertisement which did not require the applicant to produce such specific evidence, the identification card was not produced along with the application. By earlier order dated 20th July 2006, respondent No.1 clearly held that the petitioner was a local resident of the village and when such order was set aside only on the ground of not providing hearing to respondent No.4, it was not open for the Authority now to hold that the petitioner is not local resident of the village, particularly when the Authority has held in favour of the petitioner in respect of other two criteria. The learned Assistant Government Pleader was not able to point out under what rules and regulations, an applicant has to only produce a certificate of the Employment Exchange. 5 Considering the above, this petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 2nd June 2007 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.11 of 2005 filed by respondent No.4, is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the respondents-Authorities are directed to permit the petitioner to run the fair-price shop at village Medi, Taluka & District Amreli. 6 Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. D.S. Permitted. (ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy)