PANKAJKUMAR HEMCHANDBHAI SOLANKI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/9876/2010 (GJHC240455352010) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9876 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
PANKAJKUMAR HEMCHANDBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL M BAROT(2723) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
VAIBHAV SHARMA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DV BHAVSAR(5575) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR KASHYAP R KODEKAR(5800) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 02/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hari Brahmbhatt for learned
advocate Mr. Dhaval M. Barot for the petitioner, learned AGP
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned
advocate Mr. D. V. Bhavsar for respondent No. 3.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up
for final disposal. Hence, Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Vaibhav
Sharma waives service of notice of Rule for respondent Nos. 1
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:09:33 IST 2026
C/SCA/9876/2010 (GJHC240455352010) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
and 2, and learned advocate Mr. Bhavsar waives service of
notice of Rule for respondent No. 3.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for
quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.08.2010,
whereby respondent No. 1, while rejecting the revision
application preferred by respondent No. 3, cancelled the entire
process of allotment of the fair price shop, which had been
allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 23rd February, 2010,
and quashed the order dated 23rd February, 2010 passed by
the Collector, Banaskantha, and directed issuance of a fresh
advertisement for allotment of the fair price shop. The
aforesaid order is under challenge by way of the present
petition.
4. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category
and has studied up to the degree of Master of Arts. The
Government introduced a policy of allotting fair price shops to
educated unemployed persons, pursuant to which an
advertisement was published by the District Collector,
Banaskantha, on 24th June, 2009. Pursuant to the aforesaid
advertisement, the petitioner applied for allotment of a fair
price shop, and vide order dated 23rd February, 2010, he was
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:09:33 IST 2026
C/SCA/9876/2010 (GJHC240455352010) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
allotted a fair price shop at village Nanosana, Taluka Vadgam,
District Banaskantha. Pursuant to the aforesaid allotment, the
petitioner invested a sum of around Rs. 88,000/- towards the
purchase of an electronic weighing scale, inventory, furniture,
stationery, etc., and started running the fair price shop.
5. In the meantime, one Harsiddh Sakhi Mandal from
village Nanosana challenged the allotment made in favour of
the petitioner vide order dated 23rd February, 2010, by
preferring an appeal; however, the aforesaid appeal was
dismissed by the authority. Thereafter, respondent No. 3
preferred another appeal on the same ground before respondent
No. 1, being Appeal No. 35 of 2010, challenging the order
dated 23rd February, 2010 passed by the Collector,
Banaskantha, whereby the fair price shop was allotted in
favour of the petitioner.
6. In the aforesaid appeal, the Additional Secretary, Food,
Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, though
dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 3, quashed
the order dated 23rd February, 2010 passed by the Collector,
Banaskantha, whereby the fair price shop was allotted to the
petitioner and others, on the ground that the petitioner had
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:09:33 IST 2026
C/SCA/9876/2010 (GJHC240455352010) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
not produced his domicile certificate along with his application
and had not produced any documentary evidence to indicate
that he was an educated unemployed person, including a
certificate issued by the Employment Exchange to that effect.
The aforesaid order is under challenge by way of the present
petition.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Hari Brahmbhatt pointed out from
the record that the form required to be filled in for making an
application for allotment of a fair price shop has already been
annexed to the petition. He further pointed out that, from the
form itself as well as from the general instructions, it is
evident that there was no requirement to produce any domicile
certificate along with the application. Had such a requirement
been mentioned in the form, the petitioner could have
produced the domicile certificate. He, therefore, submitted that
the ground on which the allotment of the fair price shop in
favour of the petitioner was cancelled by quashing the order
dated 23rd February, 2010 is illegal and, therefore, the
aforesaid order is required to be quashed and set aside.
7.1. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt also submitted that,
subsequently, the petitioner had applied for a domicile
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:09:33 IST 2026
C/SCA/9876/2010 (GJHC240455352010) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
certificate, which was duly issued by the Mamlatdar Office,
Vadgam, on 03.09.2010, certifying that the petitioner is a
resident of Gujarat. He further submitted that the said domicile
certificate has already been produced on record.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavsar also submitted that, even
otherwise, the insistence of the Collector upon production of a
domicile certificate, or the ground on which the allotment of
the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, is
erroneous, for the reason that a domicile certificate would only
establish that the petitioner is a resident of Gujarat and would
not assist the Collector or any other authority in determining
whether the petitioner is a local resident of a particular
village, such as village X, Y or Z.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt further produced on
record a photocopy of the petitioner's registration with the
Employment Exchange dated 21.07.1997, which was
subsequently extended at least up to the year 2012, to indicate
that the petitioner was an educated unemployed person. He,
therefore, submitted that both the requirements, on the basis
of which respondent No. 1 had quashed the order dated 23rd
February, 2010 insofar as the present petitioner is concerned,
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:09:33 IST 2026
C/SCA/9876/2010 (GJHC240455352010) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
were fulfilled by the petitioner at the relevant point of time.
According to learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt, the impugned
order is, therefore, bad in law and suffers from the vice of
non-application of mind and, hence, is required to be quashed
and set aside.
10. Learned AGP Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, though vehemently
opposing the petition, also could not point out from the record
that, at any point of time, the petitioner was informed about
the requirement of producing a domicile certificate or as to
how the domicile certificate would be relevant for determining
whether the petitioner was a local resident of village Nanosana
or not. He further submitted that, once the petitioner had
produced a photocopy of his registration with the Employment
Exchange, even with regard to the other ground, he could not
point out anything from the record to indicate that the said
ground for cancellation of the petitioner's allotment of the fair
price shop could be said to be a justifiable ground.
11. Learned advocate Mr. D. V. Bhavsar, appearing for
respondent No. 3, who had preferred the application and
objected to the allotment of the fair price shop in favour of
the petitioner, though vehemently opposed the petition, also
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:09:33 IST 2026
C/SCA/9876/2010 (GJHC240455352010) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
could not point out from the record that, at any point of time,
the petitioner did not meet the relevant criteria, that the
petitioner had concealed any material fact, or that the
petitioner was otherwise ineligible for allotment of the fair
price shop. The only ground canvassed by learned advocate
Mr. Bhavsar was that the petitioner could not be termed as a
local resident of village Nanosana, as the name of the
petitioner was shown in the voters' list of Palanpur city and
not in the voters' list of village Nanosana.
12. In rejoinder, learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt pointed
out that the petitioner was issued an election card, which
bears the address of village Nanosana, and therefore, submitted
that the petitioner is a resident of village Nanosana.
13. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and
perused the record. Considering the fact that the petitioner's
allotment of the fair price shop was cancelled predominantly
on two grounds, namely: first, that the petitioner had failed to
produce the domicile certificate; and second, that the petitioner
had not attached the certificate issued by the Employment
Exchange indicating that he was an educated unemployed
person.
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:09:33 IST 2026
C/SCA/9876/2010 (GJHC240455352010) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
14. In view of the aforesaid, when the domicile certificate
has been produced by the petitioner before this Court and,
upon perusal of the application form, the Court could not find
any column indicating that it was mandatory for the petitioner
to produce a domicile certificate, the reliance placed by
respondent No. 1 on the fact that the petitioner had failed to
produce a domicile certificate is wholly misplaced and
irrelevant. A domicile certificate would only certify or indicate
that the petitioner is a resident of the State of Gujarat;
however, it would not determine whether the petitioner is a
local resident of a particular village or not.
15. Further, as regards the submission of learned advocate
Mr. Bhavsar that the petitioner is not a local resident on
account of the fact that his name appears in the voters' list of
Palanpur city, the aforesaid aspect has never been considered
by respondent No.1. However, learned advocate Mr.
Brahmbhatt has pointed out from the record that the election
card of the petitioner indicates that he is a local resident of
village Nanosana.
16. Considering the fact that there is sufficient evidence on
record to show that the petitioner is a local resident of village
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:09:33 IST 2026
C/SCA/9876/2010 (GJHC240455352010) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Nanosana, the finding recorded by respondent No. 1 cannot be
said to be correct in the facts of the present case. Therefore,
the impugned order, being based on an incorrect finding, is
required to be quashed and set aside and is, accordingly,
quashed and set aside.
17. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt pointed out that,
throughout the pendency of the present petition, by virtue of
the interim orders dated 20th August, 2010 and 14.09.2010,
the petitioner was permitted to run the fair price shop
pursuant to the original order dated 23rd February, 2010.
Accordingly, if the petitioner is still running the fair price shop
pursuant to the allotment made vide order dated 23rd
February, 2010, the petitioner may be permitted to continue to
run the said fair price shop, particularly in view of the fact
that this Court has quashed the impugned order dated
11.08.2010. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Rule is made
absolute. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
BHAVIN MEHTA
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:09:33 IST 2026