JADAV VITTHALSINH KALYANSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. LEARNED AGP waives service of notice of Rule for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 5. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.

(2.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the procedure for grant of authorization for a fair price shop in the scheme of the Government known as 'pandit Dindayal Grahak Bhandar Yojna" was undertaken. It appears that initially the authorization was granted in favour of respondent No. 5 vide order dated 7. 9. 2005. It appears that thereafter the matter was also carried before the State Government and vide order dated 25. 1. 2006 the Joint Secretary of the State Government had passed the order by setting side the order of the Collector and it was observed that after the recording the statement of reliable persons fresh procedure be undertaken by the Collector, Banaskantha. The matter was thereafter considered by the District Collector and ultimately vide order dated 8. 8. 2006 he found that the respondent No. 5 was not personally looking after the shop and, therefore, he directed for undertaking a fresh procedure for giving authorization in accordance with law. The matter was carried in appeal by respondent No. 5 before the State Government and vide order dated 25. 10. 2007, the State Government found that there is no complaint against the functioning of respondent No. 5 and, therefore, the appeal was allowed and it was observed that the authorization be granted to respondent No. 5 by setting aside the order of the Collector dated 8. 8. 2006. It is under these circumstances the petitioner, who is one of the applicants for authorization of the shop, has approached this Court by preferring the present petition.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Rana for Mr. Gambhava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Punani, learned AGP for the State Authorities and Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5. It deserves to be recorded that the essential purpose for grant of authorization is two folds; one is to provide employment to the person, who is educated and the another is to make available the essential items at a subsidized rate to the needy class of the society. So far as the second part is concerned, there is no dispute, but as it appears, the Collector exercised the power on the ground that though the authorization was granted to respondent No. 5, he was not looking after the same or personally attending the same and it was being looked after by others. It does appear that the approach on the part of the Collector is just or rather in furtherance to the policy of the Government to grant authorization for running fair price shop as per the Scheme. However, as the State Government reversed the order of the Collector without assignment of proper reasons, the matter has been brought before this Court.