Varshaben Pramodkumar Kothari & 137 vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 2 September, 2014
He has also
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Page 7 of 37
C/SCA/10951/2014 CAV JUDGMENT
State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kripalu Shankar & Ors. reported in (1987)3
SCC 34 as well as the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court
in the case of Hansadevi Ghanshyamsinh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat
reported in 2004(1) GLH 467. It is submitted that in the present case
neither any order has been passed rejecting the application of the
respective petitioners for renewal of their licenses nor any decision /
order has been communicated to the petitioners. It is submitted that if
any decision/order would have been communicated to the petitioners,
they would have challenged before the Appellate Authority and obtained
an appropriate order, in this regard. It is submitted that assuming that
any resolution was passed by the License SubCommittee of the market
committee, not to renew the licenses of the respective petitioners, the
same has not been communicated to the petitioners deliberately and
with a malafide intention so that the petitioners may not be able to
challenge the decision of nonrenewal of their licenses before the
appropriate authority. It is submitted that as per section 27(5) of the
Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"],
appeal can be preferred only against the order or decision. It is
submitted that therefore in absence of any decision and/or order
communicated to the petitioners refusing to renew their licenses even
the petitioners are deprived of their right to prefer appeal before the
Appellate Authority.