Gujarat High Court
Krushnapur Machhimar Sahakari Grahak ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29012/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
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 Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:51:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29012/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined 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 Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:51:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29012/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined 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.7994 of 1998, order Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:51:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29012/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined dated 27.11.2001 in Special Civil Application No.3109 of 2001 and order dated 23.02.2005 in Misc. Civil Application No.1101 of 2004, wherein it has been held that compliance with the guidelines issued by way of circular by the Food and Civil Supplies Department is mandatory and that they are in the nature of statutory guidance.
[4] Per contra, Ms. Tanushree Shrimal, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the show-cause notice was based on a surprise inspection as well as further inquiry undertaken by the respondent authorities. She submits that during the surprise inspection, it was found that there were several irregularities in the records maintained by the petitioner, which necessitated further inquiry on 16.09.2005.
[4.1] Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the show-cause notice clearly enumerates the deficiencies which were found by the inspection team of the respondents authorities and the petitioner herein has also given a detailed reply to each of the deficiencies so pointed out in the show- cause notice. She further submits that the petitioner has never raised any grievance in respect of non-supply of the documents before the District Supply Officer nor has he approached the authorities for inspection of such record. She submits that respondent No.3 has correctly observed in his order dated 14.12.2005 that even if the documents were not supplied with the show-cause notice, the petitioner was always at liberty to Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:51:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29012/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined inspect the same, which were lying in the office of respondent No.3. She submits that, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.
[4.2] The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that thereafter the petitioner has preferred an appeal being Appeal No.9 of 2005 before the responder No.2. She submits that a perusal of the appeal memo shows that the petitioner extensively relied upon such documents in his appeal challenging the order dated 14.12.2005 passed by the respondent No.3. She submits that the respondent No.2 by the impugned order dated 02.03.2006 has upheld all the findings which have been rendered by the respondent No.3.
[4.3] The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that since all the relevant documents were made available to the petitioner before filing the appeal, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the issue with respect to the non-compliance of the circular issued by the Food and Civil Supplies Department has been raised for the first time in the present proceedings. She submits that the impugned orders have been passed after an extensive inquiry undertaken by the respondent authorities and that the findings rendered are based on the records as available in the office of respondent No.3. She submits that the findings are just and proper and, therefore, the Special Civil Application may be dismissed.
Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:51:50 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29012/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined [4.4] The learned Assistant Government Pleader, in support of her contention, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2021) 19 SCC 706 - State of Uttar Pradesh versus Sudhir Kumar Singh and others, wherein it has been held that even if there is a violation of natural justice, the prejudice has to be shown and that whether such a prejudice has actually occasioned.
[5] Heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the documents and considered the submissions. In the present case, admittedly, the show-cause notice dated 24.11.2005 is not accompanied by any of the documents which are relied upon by the respondent authorities while adjudicating the said notice. The petitioner, in its reply dated 06.12.2005 to the show-cause notice, specifically stated that no documents or relevant information had been provided along with the show-cause notice and, therefore, in absence of the same, the petitioner is not in a position to submit its proper reply.
[6] Further, in the impugned order dated 14.12.2005, in para 6(6), respondent No.3 has dealt with the contention of the petitioner in respect of non-supply of relevant documents as relied upon by the respondent authorities by holding that the same cannot be accepted since the said documents were very much available in the office of respondent No.3 and that if the petitioner so desired, it could have easily obtained the same Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:51:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29012/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined from the respondent No.3. Accordingly, on the basis of the findings of the inquiry committee report, the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled and the requisite deposits forfeited.
[7] In the appeal proceedings, the petitioner herein has relied extensively on the inspection report as well as the relevant documents. However, in the impugned order dated 02.03.2006 passed by the respondent No.2 Collector, no any proper findings have been rendered in connection with such specific pleadings based on the records. The respondent No.2 has only stated in para '4' of its findings that the additional quantities are proved from the inquiry reports. The specific contentions raised by the petitioner on the basis of the records have not been dealt with at all. Even in the revision proceedings, a cryptic order has been passed holding that the findings arrived at are in accordance with the records and no interference is required as the contentions raised by the petitioner are similar in nature to those raised in the appeal proceedings.
[8] This Court, vide order dated 19.10.2000 in Special Civil Application No.7994 of 1998, has held that:-
"From such submissions, and also going through the impugned order, it appears that along with the notice, the documents on which the authority relied for passing the order canceling the licence, were not supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner is condemned unheard because he could not get chance to prepare Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:51:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29012/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined his defense and meet with the allegation levelled against him. At the time of hearing, he was taken up by surprise and was helpless to meet with the allegations levelled against him. Under sec. 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act, the order of confiscation if at all is required to be passed, the same has to be passed only after an opportunity of being heard is given to the owner of the goods. If that opportunity is not given the order would be vitiated. That provision contemplates that if the authority is going to place reliance on the documents, it is incumbent upon the authority to supply the copies of those documents to the person/s against whom the order is to be passed, filing which it will amount to the denial of reasonable opportunity for making effective representation or preparing defense. If without giving the copies of the documents on which the reliance is placed, the order of confiscation is passed or licence is withheld, the said order would be unsustainable. This Court when came across with similar question in the case of Kiran Oil Industries Vs. District Collector, Jamnagar, 37(2) (1996(2)) GLR 127, has made it clear that reasonable opportunity also contemplates the Show Cause Notice whereby the person against whom the action is to be taken, should be informed the grounds on which the confiscation is proposed. It therefore, follows that any material on which the reliance is to be placed must be displaced before the person on whom the Show Cause Notice is issued to enable him to have an appropriate opportunity of being heard in the matter. This decision is no-doubt with regards to the confiscation of goods, but mutatis-mutandis will apply to the cases where the licence is withheld or cancelled. In view of such law, no-doubt the opponents were duty bound to supply the copies of the documents relied upon while passing the order cancelling the licence. The Circular on which the reliance Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:51:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29012/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined is placed is on the basis of sec. 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, and the decision rendered by the different High Courts or this Court. When accordingly the Circular in the form of guidance is issued to the officer, indicating the position of law or requirement of law, the same assumes characteristic of a statutory guidance and it cannot be treated to be an administrative guidance. The officers are bound to follow the said Circular before passing the impugned order. In this case, therefore, the contention of Mr. Sudanhshu Patel. Learned A.G.P. must fail."
[9] Admittedly, in the present case, along with the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner, no documents were supplied by the respondent No.3, as can be seen from the observations made in the impugned order dated 14.12.2005. Further, the contentions raised in appeal on the basis of the records relied upon by the respondent authorities have also not been dealt with by giving cogent reasons in the impugned order dated 02.03.2006 passed by the respondent No.2 - Collector in Appeal No.9 of 2005.
[10] The findings arrived at by the respondent authorities herein are based on the verification of documents only. It was imperative upon the respondents to follow the circular published by the Food and Civil Supply Department in the year 1990, since the said circular is issued in consonance with the provisions of Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the various orders passed by this Court. The said Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:51:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29012/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined circular mandates that the respondent authorities provide all the necessary documents relied upon while issuing a show- cause notice to the delinquent.
[11] It is trite law that non-supply of the documents prejudices the delinquent and withholds the reasonable opportunity of hearing, since the delinquent cannot effectively deal with the allegations in the show-cause notice. In the present case, since the allegations were grave and resulted in the cancellation of the licence granted to the petitioner, who had been running the fair price shop from 1989 to 2005 for a period of 16 years, grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the respondent authorities. The impugned orders are, therefore, bad in law.
[12] In view of the aforesaid observations and reasons, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.12.2005 passed by the respondent No.3, the order dated 02.03.2006 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.9 of 2005 and the order dated 03.11.2007 passed by respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.33 of 2006 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) DHARMENDRA KUMAR Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:51:50 IST 2025