GITABEN NARESHKUMAR LAKHESARANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred against the order dated 19th December, 2005 passed by the State Government, b y which the application of the petitioner has been rejected without giving an opportunity of being heard.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who has mainly submitted that in pursuance of the policy/resolution of the respondent authority dated 2nd August, 2004, (Annexure "B" to the memo of the petition), there is a provision of transfer of fair price shop from one zone to another zone as per clause 11(4). The respondent authorities have not properly appreciated the policy under sub -clause and has, unilaterally decided the application preferred by the petitioner for transfer of the fair price shop dated 27th August, 2007. Neither District Supply Advisory Committee nor the State Government has heard the petitioner before passing the impugned order, whereby the application for transfer of fair price shop was rejected. Thus, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Similarly situated another person's application has been allowed which order is at Annexure "E" to the memo of the petition. Thus, arbitrary usage of power has led to discrimination and hence the impugned order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Had an opportunity of being heard been given to the petitioner, the order like Annexure "E" would not have been pointed out to the respondent authorities. This opportunity has not been given and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) I have also heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader, who has fairly submitted that opportunity of being heard shall be given to the petitioner and a fresh decision shall be taken by the respondent authorities.