SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Guj) 66

A.P.RAVANI
JAMNADAS HIRALAL MENDHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: KUSUM M.SHAH

A. P. RAVANI, J.

( 1 ) AT the request and with the consent of the parties ail these revision applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

( 2 ) EXCEPT C. R. A. No. 1219 of 1987 rest of the nine revision applications together with C. R. A. No. 1303 of 1987 arise out of a common judgment delivered by the learned Assistant Judge Surendranagar. C. R. A. No. 1303 of 1987 appears to have been left out by inadvertance. Therefore it is not being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners are holding authorisation as dealers of fair price shops. They entered into contract with the Collector Surendranagar for running fair price shops for the purposes of distribution of food-grains pamolive oil sugar and such other essential articles of human consumption. The officers of the respondent-State Government visited the shops of the petitioners and found that the petitioners had committed irregularities in respect of running of the fair price shops. The irregularities were to the effect that in certain cases stock of food-grains and pamolive oil was less than what it should be as per the stock registers. In certain cases the dealers had













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top