SCA/14103/2004 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14103 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE ====================================== N.B.PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & others ====================================== Appearance : MR PINAKIN M RAVAL for Petitioner Mr. Neeraj Soni, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 18/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1 This petition under Article 226 is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17th September 2004 passed by the Revisional Authority confirming the order dated 24th October 2003 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 8th August 2003 passed by the District Supply Officer, Godhra, at Panchmahals, cancelling license of fair-price shop of the petitioner. 2 On 3rd June 2003, the Supply Inspector from the Office of the District Supply Officer, Godhra, District Panchmahals, visited the fair- price of the petitioner and found several irregularities, namely: [i] the petitioner did not follow the terms and conditions of the SCA/14103/2004 2/6 JUDGMENT license; [ii] the petitioner illegally disposed of essential commodities to be supplied to the ration-card holders of below poverty line [BPL]; [iii] distribution of wheat and rice to the ration-card holders of BPL was less than the actual shown. [iv] kerosene was disposed of by preparing duplicate bills,which were not part of the original bill book. [v] the stock was not shown correctly in the stock and sale register. 2.1 Thus, it is found by the Supply Inspector that the petitioner, being a licensee of the fair-price shop, had acted contrary to the terms and conditions of the license 2.2 Before the license came to be cancelled, by order dated 10th June 2003, the District Supply Officer suspended the license of the petitioner for a period of sixty days. 3 The petitioner submitted explanation dated 24th July 2003, inter alia, contending that the irregularities were of minor nature. It is further contended that the petitioner bona-fidely committed certain mistakes and inadvertently essential commodities sold were not correctly recorded in the sale and stock register. Therefore, a request was made to the District Supply Officer to restore the license by invoking the order of suspension of license. However, the District Supply Officer, Panchmahals, at Godhra, after considering the charges levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice, reply and explanation submitted by the petitioner and, after affording an opportunity of hearing, found that, on earlier occasion also, the petitioner had committed similar irregularities and he was dealt with leniently by recovering Rs.500/- from the deposit and also the value of disposed of essential articles, with SCA/14103/2004 3/6 JUDGMENT a warning that, in future, if the petitioner continues to commit irregularities, he would be dealt with severely, and cancelled the licence to run the fair-price shop granted to the petitioner by order dated 8th August 2003. 4 Being aggrieved by the order dated 8th August 2003 passed by the District Supply Officer, Panchmahals, at Godhra, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Panchamhals, at Godhra, contending that the order passed by the District Supply Officer impugned in the appeal was very harsh and, therefore, was required to be quashed and set aside. However, considering all the relevant aspects and after hearing the petitioner, the District Collector found that the irregularities committed by the petitioner were proved by evidence on record and held that there was no reason to reverse the order dated 8th August 2003 passed by the District Supply Officer. Accordingly, the District Collector passed order dated 24th October 2003 confirming the order of the District Supply Officer. 5 Being aggrieved by the order dated 24th October 2003 passed by the District Collector, the petitioner filed Revision Application before the Revisional Authority. It was contended by the petitioner that the orders passed by both the authorities below are illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. On merit, it was contended that irregularities were not grave in nature and, due to inadvertence and negligence on the part of the petitioner, certain record was not maintained by him correctly. It was further contended that there was no complaint on behalf of the ration-card holders or less-supply of essential commodity and the reliance on earlier irregularities had no relevance and, therefore, a request was made before the Revisional Authority to restore the license of the petitioner. SCA/14103/2004 4/6 JUDGMENT 6 The Revisional Authority considered the submissions made and contentions raised by the petitioner in detail and, after hearing the petitioner, passed a reasoned order. It was found by the Revisional Authority that the irregularities found on the visit of the Supply Inspector were based on documentary evidence and wheat, rice and kerosene were found to have been disposed of by the petitioner illegally and the commodities, which are essential in nature meant for ration-card holders of BPL, did not reach them. Therefore, after considering the afore- mentioned facts, the orders passed by the Authorities below were confirmed by the Revisional Authority by order dated 17.9.2004. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that all the three authorities below committed illegality in as much as the impugned orders were in violation of provisions of the Act and the Rules and also against the principles of natural justice. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the license was suspended for a period of 60 days and the petitioner was kept out of business, that itself was sufficient punishment for the irregularities of minor nature. It was further submitted that, since the object of the scheme is to provide employment to the uneducated youth, the petitioner may be given one more opportunity to run fair-price shop, so that he can eke out his livelihood. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner can be imposed with a minor punishment of a fine and the respondents may be directed accordingly. 8 Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the record. 9 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is preferred by the petitioner against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three authorities below, namely, the District Supply SCA/14103/2004 5/6 JUDGMENT Officer, the District Collector in appeal and the Deputy Secretary of State of Gujarat in revision and there is no illegality committed by them apparent on the face of it in passing the impugned orders. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the irregularities committed by the petitioner were of minor nature and, therefore, a lesser punishment can be imposed in exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 10 It is trite that power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised when there is illegality in decision making process by the authorities below and when the order is arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of principles of natural justice in the back-drop of the facts and circumstances of each case. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that, upon visit by the competent authority on 3rd June 2003, 14 irregularities were noticed, out of which, seven irregularities were grave in nature pertaining to illegal means of disposal of essential commodities depriving BPL ration-card holders of their quota. Not only that, but the correct record in the form of stock and sale registers was not maintained and duplicate bills were prepared by the petitioner. The above irregularities were found to be proved on the basis of the documentary evidence produced before the authorities below and no justifiable reasons were advanced by the petitioner and the explanation rendered by him was found to be unacceptable. The above concurrent finding of facts, according to this Court, appear to be correct and are based on true appreciation of evidence produced before the Authorities below. Not only that, on earlier occasion also, when the petitioner was found committing irregularities, a minor penalty of recovery of value of essential commodities disposed of by the petitioner was imposed with a warning that, in future, if he commits similar irregularities, he would be SCA/14103/2004 6/6 JUDGMENT dealt with severely. 11 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the orders impugned in this petition are, in any manner, unreasonable, arbitrary or violative of principles of natural justice or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. No procedural irregularity is found to have been committed by the Authorities below and the impugned orders have been passed by the Authorities below after issuing show cause notice, considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Considering the above, there is no substance in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12 No other contention is raised. 13 In the result, this petition fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy)