Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 519 of 2015 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1157 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? No ============================================================== RAVINDRAKUMAR RAYSINH PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s) ============================================================== Appearance: MR PH GOHIL(1878) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR UTKARSH SHARMAT AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,6,7 MR MAULIK NANAVATI ADVOCATE FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s) No. 5 RULE NOT RECD BACK(63) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ============================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 22/01/2021
Page 1 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-original petitioner seeking quashment of the order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1157 of 2015. 2. The facts, as emerging from the memo of petition, are that the respondent No.2 -Collector, Dahod, invited applications from local educated unemployed persons seeking allotment of fair price shop at Village Pipaliya, District Dahod. The applications so received were placed before the respondent No.4-Taluka Civil Supplies Advisory Committee. It appears that after necessary scrutiny, the respondent No.4-Taluka Civil Supplies Advisory Committee recommended the case of the appellant herein for allotment of fair price shop. Thereafter, the above recommendation, along with the applications of candidates, was forwarded to respondent No.3-District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee, Dahod for further action, who recommended the case of respondent No.5 herein for allotment of fair price shop by placing her name at serial No.1 of the priority list. The name of the appellant herein was placed at serial No.2 of such Page 2 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT list. 2.1 Pursuant to such recommendation given by respondent No.3, the respondent No.2 passed the order dated 16.12.2014, whereby the fair price shop at Village: Pipaliya came to be allotted in favour of respondent No.5. Against such allotment, the appellant herein made a detailed representation to respondent No.1 herein vide letter dated 29.12.2014. It appears that no steps were taken by the respondent- authority on such objection. 2.2 Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein preferred writ petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.1157 of 2015. The said petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2015 whereby, the learned Single Judge has recorded the conclusion that the allegations made by the appellant herein in relation to allotment of fair price shop in favour of respondent No.5 has remained unsubstantiated and that the respondent No.5 has been rightly allotted the fair price shop. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the Page 3 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT matter in its proper perspective. It was submitted that according to the policy framed by the Government for allotment of fair price shop, the basic requirement of the candidate concerned is that he /she should be a “local resident” and should be “educated unemployed”. He contended that the very thrust of the policy is that the allotment should be in favour of a “local resident”. However, the respondent No.5, in whose favour the allotment has been made is resident of District Vadodara and not local resident of District Dahod. Thus, the very basic requirement under the policy has been breached by the respondent-authority by making allotment in favour of respondent No.5. 4 It was further submitted that the respondent No.4 – Taluka Civil Supplies Advisory Committee had recommended the case of the appellant herein by placing his name at serial No.1 of the list of recommended candidates, whereas the case of respondent No.5 herein had never been recommended by the respondent No.4 - Taluka Civil Supplies Advisory Committee, as she had not produced any document to show that she was a “local resident” of Village - Pipaliya, District Dahod. In spite of that, the respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee over-turned the Page 4 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT recommendation given by respondent No.4 - Taluka Civil Supplies Advisory Committee and recommended the name of respondent No.5 by placing her name at Serial No.1 of the list for unknown reasons. It was submitted that respondent No.5 had filed false affidavit stating that she was born at Village - Pipaliya, which is contrary to her School Leaving Certificate. Further, the Certificate issued by the Talati-cum-Mantri as also the Mamlatdar are on such false affidavit of respondent No.5 and therefore, the said documents does not have much relevance. 4.1 Mr. Vyas, learned counsel, further submitted that the respondent No.5 had not produced any document to show that she is a “local resident” of Village - Pipaliya, District - Dahod. In fact, the document obtained from the Official Website of the Chief Electoral Officer, Gujarat State reveals that the respondent No.5 is a resident of District Vadodara and not of District Dahod where the fair price shop in question is to be allotted. Our attention was drawn to the Minutes of the Meeting of respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee to submit that the reason behind recommending the name of respondent No.5 at serial No.1 of the list appears to be her higher educational qualification. However, such Page 5 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT recommendation is against the basic requirement of the policy, which is aspect of “local residency”. It was submitted that the immovable properties, which stood in the name of the father-in-law of respondent No.5, would not prove that respondent No.5 is a “local resident” of Village - Pipaliya, particularly when her father-in-law is a resident of District - Vadodara and her husband is stated to be a serving employee of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation. 4.2 Learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of the Court to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned whereby it is recorded that the Assistant Government Pleader is justified in his submission that Police Station would issue a certificate in respect of only those persons who reside within its territorial jurisdiction. It was submitted that said reasoning of the learned Single Judge is without any basis as the police certificate does not record that respondent No.5 is a local resident within the limits of the police station as it only records whether the person concerned has any criminal record registered with such police station or not. The statement of the Sarpanch of Village - Pipaliya also endorsed the fact that respondent No.5 was not a local resident of said village. The Panchnama drawn at the instance of the Page 6 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT respondent-authorities at the District level does not have much relevance as it relates to the details of the property/assets of respondent No.5 and does not state anything regarding the “local residency” of respondent No.5, which was the basic requirement under the policy. 4.3 Learned counsel Mr. Vyas further contended that the appellant had produced sufficient documentary evidence before the respondent-authority to fortify the claim that respondent No.5 was not a “local resident” of Village - Pipaliya. However, the respondent-authority ignored the material and made allotment in favour of respondent No.5 in complete contravention of the terms of policy. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Maulik Nanavati appearing for respondent No.5 relied on the affidavit filed by respondent No.5 to submit that all relevant material were placed before the respondent - authorities at the relevant time and after due verification / consideration, the case of respondent No.5 was recommended for Page 7 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT allotment of the fair price shop. It was submitted that respondent No.5 got married to one Jayeshbhai Ramanbhai Parmar, who was a resident of Village - Pipaliya, Taluka - Limkheda, District - Dahod, in the year 2004 and since then, she has been residing at her matrimonial home at Village - Pipaliya home. In all her correspondences, respondent No.5 has stated that she is a local resident of Village - Pipaliya since last more than 10 years. 5.1 Learned counsel for respondent No.5 relied upon the Certificate issued by the Mamlatdar concerned to submit that such Certificate has been issued by the authority after verifying all the material placed before it. It was submitted that if the appellant has any doubts regarding the genuineness of said Certificate, he has remedy available under the law. Under the policy, one of the requirements is the production of Unemployment Certificate. The respondent No.5 had produced the certificate issued by Employment Bureau, GEB, Vadodara to prove that she was unemployed. It was contended that any document revealing that respondent No.5 had stayed in District Vadodara for any period of time would not tantamount that she is a “local resident” of such place. Reliance was placed on the copy of the Electricity Bill of the place of residence of Page 8 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT respondent No.5 to submit that she was a resident of Village Pipaliya. The terms of the policy does not bar the applicant concerned from having additional property/s outside the limits of the area where the fair price shop is to be allotted. It was, therefore, submitted that the allotment made in favour of respondent No.5 was just, proper and in accordance with the terms of the policy. 5.2 Learned counsel Mr. Nanavati further submitted that the Election Card was never called for by the respondent-authorities in the check-list therefore, the same is irrelevant for the purpose of the subject matter on hand. Same is the case with the Ration Card. Thus, there was no suppression by the respondent No.5 and it was, accordingly, urged that the appeal may be rejected. 6. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4, contended that the respondent-authorities had allotted the fair price shop to respondent No.5 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. He submitted that due process was followed by the authority concerned and thus after subjective satisfaction the allotment of the fair price shop had been made in favour of respondent No.5. Hence, the appeal may be Page 9 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT rejected. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee and affirmed by Jaysukhbhai Dhirubhai Patel, District Supply Officer, Dahod is on record. It is averred in the affidavit that an advertisement was published on 21.07.2014 inviting applications for allotment of fair price shop at Village - Pipaliya. In all, four applications were received by the respondent – authority. After scrutiny of the applications by the Office of the Mamlatdar concerned, the same were sent to the Office of respondent No.4 – Taluka Civil Supplies Advisory Committee on 04.10.2014 for further action. On 16.10.2014 the respondent No.4 – Taluka Civil Supplies Advisory Committee sent its proposal whereby, it recommended the name of the appellant herein for allotment of fair price shop by placing his name at serial No.1 of the priority list. One Parmar Pravinchandra Lalubhaiwas placed at serial No.2 and one Parmar Ghyandevi Rohitbhai was placed at serial No.3. 8. It is pertinent to note that the name of respondent No.5 herein Page 10 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT did not figure in the priority list recommended by respondent No.4 – Taluka Civil Supplies Advisory Committee. It is averred in the said affidavit that the respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Committee recommended the name of respondent No.5 “on humanitarian grounds” as she possessed better and higher education qualification and thereby placed her at serial NO.1 of the priority list and consequently, the order dated 16.12.2014 came to be passed allotting the fair price shop in favour of respondent No.5. It is further averred that as per the Government Resolution dated 02.08.2004, the appellant has the remedy of approaching the appellate authority against the order passed by the District Collector. If the said Resolution dated 02.08.2004 is read with the Government Resolution dated 30.04.2002, educated unemployed candidate is to be given preference according to their qualifications. In response to the allegation made by the appellant that respondent No.5 is working in an “Anganwadi” at Vadodara and is not a local resident of Village - Pipaliya, it is averred in the affidavit that in the meeting held on 17.02.2015, the respondent No.3 had directed the Program Officer concerned to furnish relevant details to that effect and thereby, inquiry was proposed to be initiated. In response thereof, the Page 11 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT respondent No.5 had produced certificate issued by the Taluka-cum- Mantri, Pipaliya dated 07.08.2014 and certificate issued by the Mamlatdar, Limkheda dated 08.08.2014 certifying that she is a resident of Village Pipaliya, and therefore, the allegation made by the appellant that the respondent No.5 is not a local resident of Village Pipaliya stands negated from the documents produced by respondent No.5 at the relevant point of time. It is also averred that respondent No.5 was found to be more qualified than the other applicants and therefore, her name was recommended and placed at serial No.1of the priority list and by order dated 16.12.2014, the fair price shop came to be allotted in her favour. 8.1 The respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee has placed reliance on the Government Resolution dated 02.08.2004, to contend that educated unemployed Graduate is to be given first preference. In para-5 of the Government Resolution dated 02.08.2004, under the heading “Dukan Manjuri Mateno Agrtakram” meaning “order of priority for allotment of shop”, applications are to be invited from educated unemployed candidates while giving priority to local educated unemployed candidates. The policy provides that amongst the local educated unemployed candidates, Page 12 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT first preference is to be given to Graduates,then to SSC qualified or equivalent and so on while maintaining reservations. It has been averred that respondent No.5 was placed at serial No.1 of the priority list since she had better and higher educational qualification as compared to other candidates, including the appellant. 9. In the order impugned, the learned single has reproduced the relevant averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3-District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee, which are produced hereunder for ready reference:- “2. I state that in the district Civil Supply Committee, it was unanimously decided at Point No.4 that, if the educational qualification is considered, then, the private respondent herein would come at Sr. No.1 and thereby, the allotment of Fair Price Shop was to be made in favour of the private respondent. A copy of the said minutes of the meeting is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R-1. 3. I would also like to bring on record the inquiry report of the Assistant Municipal Commissioner ICDS, Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan dated 28.01.2015, informing the answering respondent that the private respondent is not working at Anganwadi Worker. A copy of the report dated ANNEXURE-R-2. 4. In view of what is stated in the earlier affidavit as well as the document annexed with this affidavit, I respectfully submit that the decision to allot Fair Price Shop in favour of private respondent is just and proper and therefore, no reliefs as prayed by the petitioner be granted.” Page 13 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT 10. It appears that the learned Single Judge had called for the original record of the case from the Office of the concerned respondent and has, thereafter, observed in the order impugned that the Talati-cum-Mantri of Gram Panchayat, Pipalia, Taluka - Limkheda, District - Dahod, has issued certificate dated 07.08.2014, which certified that respondent No.5 is a resident of Village Pipalia. It is also observed that the statement of Jayeshbhai Rambhai Parmar, i.e. the husband of respondent No.5 herein, revealed that he holds an account with Bank of Baroda at Post-Singvad, Taluka-Limkheda, District-Dahod. The residential Electricity Bill issued in the name of the father-in-law of the respondent No.5 had also been produced. The learned Single Judge also referred to the Panchnama drawn by the authority concerned on 30.12.2014 regarding the residency of respondent No.5. The learned Single Judge also referred to the photo-copy of the National Savings Certificate issued by the Sub- Postmaster, Limkheda wherein the address of respondent No.5, as being a resident of Village-Pipaliya, is mentioned. 11. During the course of hearing, the attention of the Court was drawn to Form-1 appended to Schedule-B, which is the form that Page 14 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT was to be filled-in by the candidates seeking allotment of fair price shop. Along with other particulars, the said form also called for details relating to Election Card and Ration Card of the applicant. The applicants were also asked to furnish details relating to their educational qualification as also documents to prove the aspect of residency. The above information sought for by the authority concerned for consideration of the case of the applicants invariably means that the authority concerned has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction in respect of the details so furnished by the applicant concerned before rendering any final decision as regards the allotment of the fair price shop. In the present case, the materials which were necessary for arriving at a subjective satisfaction were called for in Form-1 appended to application Schedule-B. The respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee has noted that respondent No.5 has not produced the Ration Card as also her Election Card, which, as per their opinion, were secondary documents and were not relevant for consideration of the issue on hand. However, the said conclusion arrived by the respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee is erroneous as the same runs contrary to the details sought for by the authority in the Page 15 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT prescribed Form-1. The appellant had filed objections before the respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee stating that his name has been recommended and kept at serial No.1 of the priority list prepared by respondent No.4 – Taluka Civil Supplies Advisory Committee after appreciating all the material on document, including the Ration Card as also the Election Card. However, it appears that respondent No.3 – District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee has not considered the same in its proper perspective. 12. Before we proceed further, it would be beneficial to understand as to what the expression “subjective satisfaction” means. In simple terms, the expression “subjective satisfaction” describes a situation where a decision has been arrived at on the basis of a reasonable satisfaction derived out of a rational mind. In other words, in order to ascertain whether a subjective satisfaction has been arrived at before taking the decision, it is necessary to consider whether the material available on record is such as would be sufficient to arrive at such satisfaction ? The decision should not be based upon the whims and caprice of the authority concerned but Page 16 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT has to be arrived at after due consideration of the material on record. Thus, before passing any order, it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to arrive at a subjective satisfaction regarding the issue on hand and only thereafter, the final order is passed. In case, the authority concerned passes the order without arriving at a subjective satisfaction regarding the issue on hand, then the Court can always look into the legality and validity of such decision arrived at by the authority concerned. 13. In the present case, it is an admitted position that two relevant documents, details of which were sought for along with the application in Form-1, were not furnished by the respondent No.5 and the recommendation given by the respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee is without taking into consideration the said two documents. When the said two documents were sought for ascertaining the suitability of a candidate for the allotment of fair price shop, it was expected from the respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee that the decision/recommendation is made in good faith and on the basis of the material on record. The respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Page 17 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Advisory Committee was not justified in ignoring or brushing aside the relevant details, as sought for in the prescribed form. It was not open for the respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee to ignore consideration of documents, which, otherwise, were required to be considered before arriving at any decision. The failure on the part of respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee to consider the said two documents is a material irregularity as the said two documents relate to the proof of residency of the candidate concerned, which is the basic requirement under the policy. 14. It is true that respondent No.5 possessed much higher educational qualification as compared to that of the appellant at the relevant time. However, the educational qualification required was of Graduation, which the appellant possessed. In our opinion, the decision arrived at by respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee is perverse since the authority has deliberately avoided consideration of two relevant documents prescribed in Form-1 and particularly, when the said documents relate to the aspect of residency, which is the core ingredient under the policy. Page 18 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT The said decision taken by respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee smells of mala fides as no ground or justifiable reason was available with the authority concerned to arrive at such decision, more so when the documents in the form of Ration Card and Election Card, which were necessary for comparative analysis regarding the suitability of candidates, were remarked as subsidiary or irrelevant document in the context of respondent No.5. 15. In the case of Ram Chandra Chaudhari v. Secretary to Government of West-Bengal, reported in AIR 1964 Cal 265, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that mala fide does not necessarily involve malicious intention. There can be a case of mala fide even in the absence of a malicious intention, if the authorities have taken into account matters, circumstances or events wholly extraneous to the purpose for which a statutory power is vested in those authorities because when an authority is vested with power, but he is required to consult an advisory body before taking his decision, the responsibility for the decision of the final action that emerges is that of the authority who is entrusted with that power. If the authority concerned fails to apply its mind and to exercise its discretion, the Page 19 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT order shall stand vitiated for being mala fide. 15.1 In the case of S. Pratap Singh Vs The State of Punjab, reported in 1964 AIR 72, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that every authority in the State including the Government should act bona fide and within the limits of its power. 15.2 In the case of Omar Salay Mohammed Sait Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, reported in AIR 1959 SC 1238, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that what is desirable of a decision making authority is that it must act in good faith, must have regard to relevant considerations only, must disregard all irrelevant considerations, must not seek to promote purposes alien to the letter or the spirit of legislation that it gives it power and must not act arbitrarily or capriciously and that it should not base its findings on suspicion, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicion, conjectures and surmises, and it it does anything of the sort, it findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside. Where a fact finding authority has acted without any evidence, when they Page 20 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT were called upon to examine the eligibility of the applicant or had come upon a view of fact, which could not reasonably be entertained, then the finding arrived at by such authority is liable to be interfered with. 16. It appears from the order impugned that the learned Single Judge has not considered the aspect that respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee had ignored two relevant documents pertaining to the residency of respondent No.5, which goes into the root of the matter. The respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee has taken the decision, without considering two relevant documents pertaining to respondent No.5, which is an error apparent and detectable on the face of record. This Court is conscious of the fact that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against the decision itself but, is confined to the decision making process. If the Court finds that the decision making authority has committed an error apparent on the face of the record or that the authority has failed to consider documents which were relevant for arriving at a decision, then such decision has to be interfered with. The failure to Page 21 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT do so would occasion a failure of justice and may cause irreparable injury to the party concerned. 16.1 In this regard, it would be beneficial to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh Etc., reported in 1989 (2) SCC 505, wherein it has been held that when the issue raised in judicial review is whether the decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant facts or such decision has neglected to take into account relevant factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, then the Court can review such decision making process, which includes the examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of all the factors. 16.2 Similar principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in the decision rendered in the case of Bhubaneswar Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Adikanda Biswal & ors., reported in 2012 (11) SCC 731, wherein the following observations have been made in paragraph-19; Page 22 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT “19.We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in sitting in appeal over the decision taken by the statutory authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made and the Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. The Court confines itself to the question of legality and is concerned only with, whether the decision making authority exceeded its power, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached an unreasonable decision or abused its powers.” 16.3 In the case on hand, admittedly, the respondent No.3-District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee has rendered the decision without taking into consideration two documents pertaining to respondent No.5. Since the issue related to allotment of fair price shop to the unemployed educated local youths, the said two documents of respondent No.5 ought to have been considered by the respondent authority before arriving at the decision since the said two documents pertaining to the residency of respondent No.5, which is the basic criteria of allotment under the policy. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects and in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & others v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh (supra), we are of the view that the authorities being respondent Nos.2 and 3 have committed serious Page 23 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT error in law in ignoring two crucial documents while rendering the decision and hence, the same could not be sustained. 17. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition and the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the respondent-authority allotting the fair price shop in favour of respondent No.5 as also the order / merit list passed by respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee placing the name of respondent No.5 at serial No.1 of the priority list are quashed and set aside. The allotment of fair price shop made in favour of respondent No.5 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.07.2014 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3 - District Civil Supplies Advisory Committee for consideration afresh, in accordance with the policy which was prevailing at the relevant point of time, i.e. as per advertisement dated 21.07.2014. Such fresh recommendation/priority list shall be forwarded to the Office of respondent - District Collector on or before 15.03.2021. On receipt of such recommendation from respondent No.3 - authority, the Page 24 of 25
C/LPA/519/2015 CAV JUDGMENT respondent - District Collector shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on or before 15.04.2021. Needless to state that the respondent authorities are required to consider the applications received by them for allotment of fair price shop at Village : Pipaliya, District : Dahod in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.07.2014 and as per the situation that was prevailing at the relevant point of time, i.e. in the year 2014. With the above directions, the appeal stands disposed of. (DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J) (GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj Page 25 of 25