IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 29012 of 2007 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Sd/-

==================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

==================================================

KRUSHNAPUR MACHHIMAR SAHAKARI GRAHAK BHANDAR LIMITED Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==================================================

Appearance MR HR PRAJAPATI(674) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. TANUSHREE SHRIMAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 19/11/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT [1] Heard the learned counsels for the parties at length.

[2] By the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.12.2005 passed by the respondent No.3 herein cancelling the licence of the petitioner who is running a fair price shop and forfeiting the deposit amount of the licence as well as the contract and further order dated 02.03.2006 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.9 of 2005 and order dated 03.11.2007 passed by respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.33 of 2006.

[3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, a show-notice dated 24.11.2005 came to be issued to the petitioner for various irregularities. The reply to the show-cause notice was to be given by 06.12.2005. Learned counsel submits that in the affidavit-in-reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner had clearly stated that though the notice states that in cross-verification with the ration cards, certain discrepancies had been found, no supporting documents were provided along with the show-cause notice.

[3.1] The learned counsel submits that even in the impugned order dated 14.12.2005, respondent No.3 - District Supply Officer, Navsari has stated in para 6(6) that if such documents were not supplied with the said show-cause notice, the petitioner was always at liberty to come and inspect the said documents which were lying in the office of the respondent No.3. The learned counsel submits that the Department of Food and Civil Supplies issued a circular in the year 1990, whereby guidelines were issued to all the authorities regarding the procedure to be followed before an order cancelling a fair price shop licence is passed by the authorities. He submits that, as per the said circular, the authority has to supply copies of all the documents on which it places reliance to the fair price shop owner, and such circular was binding on the respondent authorities. He submits that, in the present case, admittedly no documents were supplied with the show-cause notice dated

24.11.2005.

[3.2] The learned counsel submits that the impugned action of respondent No.3 in not supplying the copies of the documents relied upon was contrary to the circular as well as principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no effective reply to the said show- cause notice could be given by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that even in appeal, the petitioners had raised specific contentions after going through the record available with the respondent No.3. However, respondent No.2 - Collector in his impugned order dated 02.03.2006 has not dealt with the said contentions and has held that the reasons stated by the respondent No.3 are just and proper.

[3.3] The learned counsel submits that in the revision proceedings before the respondent No.1, the findings rendered by respondent Nos.3 and 2 have been mechanically affirmed. The learned counsel submits that, in view of the submissions, the impugned orders are bad in law and contrary to the circular issued by the State Government, and therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside.

[3.4] The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 19.10.2000 in Special Civil Application No.799