SCA/83619/1999 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 836 of 1999 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 ? ========================================================= KANVARALI BHANVARKHAN - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HR PRAJAPATI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 25/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Petitioner has challenged an order dated 14.8.98 passed by respondent No.3 canceling kerosene license of the petitioner as also order dated 5.10.98 by SCA/83619/1999 2/3 JUDGMENT which the appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Collector. 2. For certain alleged irregularities, a show cause notice dated 29.5.98 was issued to the petitioner. Primarily two main allegations were leveled in the said notice. First was that the petitioner had distributed 30 liters of kerosene unauthorizedly and further that by preparing false bills of three card holders, he had similarly unauthorizedly distributed 110 liters of kerosene. The petitioner denied the charges and made a detailed representation. The Competent Authority, however, by the impugned order dated 14.8.98 held the charges proved. In coming to the said conclusion, he relied heavily on the statements of card holders No.970 and 979 which were recorded by the authorities. It is, however, significant to note that such statements were never formed part of the show cause notice nor, as contended by the petitioner, ever supplied to him during the course of inquiry. Thus it would appear that to drive home the charges, the authorities relied on statements of witnesses which statements were never supplied to the petitioner leave alone any opportunity to verify the same. The very basis of the impugned order canceling the license of the petitioner thus is ill- founded. SCA/83619/1999 3/3 JUDGMENT 3. The impugned order as well as the appellate order confirming the said order are therefore quashed. It is stated that after canceling the license of the petitioner, no license permanently has been given by the Government. The respondents shall therefore restore the license to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)