Gujarat High Court
Rana vs State on 10 February, 2012
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1809/2012 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1809 of 2012
=================================================
RANA
PRADUMANSINH PRAVINSINH - Petitioner
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
KIRTIDEV R DAVE for Petitioner:
MS. ASMITA PATEL, LD. AGP for
Respondent : 1,
None for Respondent : 2,
MR TUSHAR L SHETH for
Respondent : 3,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 10/02/2012
ORAL
ORDER
By way this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 as well as 227 of the Constitution of India with following prayers:
"19.a.
Your Lordships be pleased to admit this application.
b.
Your Lordships be pleased to writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction by holding that the order holding that the petitioner is not qualified for license for fair price shop for village Gedi by the State, the respondent No.1, in Appeal No. 16 of 2011 by order Dt. 06-01-2012 is illegal, unconstitutional and so the action be quashed and set aside.
c.
Your Lordships be further pleased to order that the license for fair price shop for village Gedi allotted to the petitioner be continued.
d.
Your Lordships be further pleased to suspend the implementation and operation of order of the State, respondent no.1, in Appeal No. 16 of 2011 by order Dt. 06-01-2012 pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. And no further actions be taken for allotment of such license afresh."
The facts as narrated by the petitioner in the memo of the petition could be summarised as under.
Petitioner was allotted fair price shop. Respondent no.3 filed Appeal No. 20 of 2009 before the competent authority, i.e. Dy. Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies department. Appellate authority remanded the matter vide order dated 16/10/2009 which was challenged by present petitioner by way of writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 11344 of 2009, wherein this Court (Coram K.S. Jhaveri, J) on 5/11/2009 remanded the matter to Collector prima facie holding in favour of the petitioner being Remand Case No. 2 of 2009. On remand Collector dismissed appeal of respondent no.3 by order dated 19/1/2010 which was challenged by respondent no.3 before the Dy. Collector (Civil Supplies) by way of appeal no. 18 of 2010. Dy. Collector again remanded the case to Collector vide order dated 1/8/2010. The Collector in remand case no. 1 of 2010 dismissed the appeal on 10/2/2011. Again respondent no.3 preferred appeal no. 16 of 2011 wherein the authority came to the conclusion that both the contestants, namely petitioner as well as respondent no.3 were not eligible for getting license to run fair price shop vide order dated 6/1/2012 which is impugned in the present petition.
The authority has ordered the entire procedure be undertaken afresh. Being aggrieved by the impugned order present petitioner preferred this petition, however respondent no.3 has approached this Court by way of caveat.
This Court is of the considered view that the order impugned before this Court does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and therefore this petition is required to be dismissed on the following grounds:
The chequered history of appeal and remand atleast three times itself is sufficient to show that the authority whose order is under challenge before this Court was absolutely justified in holding that there is requirement of inviting fresh applications by new advertisement.
The findings recorded by the authorities qua the petitioner's ineligibility that petitioner was not a person who can be said to be an unemployed educated youth. In fact the record and petitioner's own admission with regard to his land holding to the tune of 9.90.25 Hec. is itself sufficient to indicate safely that petitioner could not be said to be a man without wherewithal.
The competent authority relied upon letter issued by Talati indicating that last year petitioner had earned Rs.50,000/- income, which is sought to be objected to by present petitioner's counsel by saying that this document was not forming part of record before the Collector.
This Court is not much impressed by the submission as to land and its holding in favour of petitioner and the income earned out of it is taken, would imminently show that the income indicated by the Talati could never be said to be in any manner exaggerated. The land holding and income thereof is sufficient to infer against the petitioner. Moreover learned advocate for caveator has pointed out by indicating averments on page-27 which were submission of respondent no.3 before the competent authority at the relevant time that petitioner was having money lending license which was renewed and this fact would not justify claim of the petitioner even to maintain this petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.
The respondent no.3 who has also been said to be not eligible, in my view is also a correct finding, as the facts with regard to renewal of his LIC license as 'LIC Agent' and earning of Rs.10,000/- would stare in the face of respondent no.3. At this stage respondent no.3's counsel contended that this income cannot be said to be an adequate income so as to deprive respondent no.3 of his entitlement to be treated as unemployed youth. This Court is of the considered view that this submission is also bereft of merits as the conditions embedded in the averment is that the applicant is to be educated unemployed. Now, if one is working as LIC agent then lesser earning attributed to his capacity to earn or mustering more clients and earn more is not a question for deciding the status of unemployed youth. Had he been sufficient enough to muster more clients he would be earning more commission. Therefore this fact would not help respondent no.3 in any manner as to project himself an unemployed youth. The fact remains that he is having engagement as LIC agent is not disputed.
In view of these, the Court is of the considered view that the petition is bereft of merits and as the order impugned is absolutely just and proper present petition is required to be dismissed. This Court is also of the considered view that even the case of respondent no.3 for not treating to be eligible is also just & proper and his case also rightly been rejected by the competent authority. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn Top