VAGHELA RANJITSINH NARSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought direction to the respondents to allot a shop in Gandhinagar Township as per the Scheme introduced by the State Government for giving the benefits under the Patnagar Development Scheme. This very petitioner had earlier filed Special Civil Application No.8720 of 1997 for similar relief and this Court, vide order dated 17.8.1998, directed the competent authority to decide the application of the petitioner dated 18.11.1993 under the Scheme dated 1.11.1993 within a period of three months. It appears that pursuant to the above-said order, the competent authority, i.e. Collector of Gandhinagar District, has taken decision, which is found at Annexure-'H' (page 23) on 17.10.1998 and rejected the demand of the petitioner for allotment of shop, on the ground that father of the petitioner Shri Narsinh Shivsinh Vaghela was given benefit of service.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that under the Scheme, copy of which was not produced by the petitioner but is produced with the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner was entitled to more than one benefit. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the petitioner has been given only one benefit of residential plot in Gandhinagar but has not been given other benefit, though, as an affected person, the petitioner was entitled to one more benefit under the said Scheme. It is further the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was never given benefit of service and a false fact is recorded in the communication dated 17.10.1998, at Annexure-'H'. The petitioner on this basis, therefore, claimed that he may be given one more benefit of allotment of shop in Gandhinagar Township under the Scheme.

(3.) EVEN apart from the above, the petitioner after these many years cannot claim benefit on the basis of the Scheme introduced in the year 1987. The petitioner has not relied on any other circular or scheme. The petitioner has already got one benefit of residential plot. The Scheme of-course floated by the Government was for giving benefit to the affected persons but the petitioner as a matter of right cannot claim for allotment of shop under the said Scheme, that too approaching the Court after more than 10 years. In fact, if the petitioner was sure that his father was never given service, as stated by the deponent in the affidavit and as revealed in the communication dated 17.10.1998, the petitioner could have obtained concrete information from the concerned department, wherein his father was alleged to have been given benefit of service. This petition remained pending from 1998 and the petitioner has not gathered any other information either under Right to Information or through any other source so as to rebut the statement made in the communication dated 17.10.1998, except the bare statement in the petition. Even after the affidavit is filed dated 3.5.2011, the petitioner has neither disputed the statement made in the affidavit about the service benefit given to the father of the petitioner nor even has made any attempt to dispute the entry made in the Identity card of affected person wherein it is clearly stated that the father of the petitioner was given benefit of service.