Allotment cannot be cancelled for non-submission of a domicile certificate not prescribed in the application.

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate and an educated person, applied pursuant to the District Collector, Banaskantha’s advertisement dated 24 June 2009 for allotment of a fair price shop under the Government policy for educated unemployed persons. By order dated 23 February 2010, the Collector allotted him a fair price shop at village Nanosana, Taluka Vadgam, District Banaskantha. The petitioner thereafter invested approximately ₹88,000 in equipment, furniture, stationery and inventory and commenced business.

A village organisation first challenged the allotment, but its appeal was dismissed. Respondent No. 3 subsequently filed Appeal No. 35 of 2010. Although the Additional Secretary dismissed that appeal, he also quashed the Collector’s allotment order and directed a fresh advertisement, principally on the grounds that the petitioner had not submitted a domicile certificate or documentary proof from the Employment Exchange showing that he was an educated unemployed person.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 11 August 2010 under Article 226 of the Constitution. During the proceedings, he produced a domicile certificate issued on 3 September 2010 and an Employment Exchange registration dated 21 July 1997, extended at least until 2012. He also relied on his election card showing an address at village Nanosana to establish local residence.

Interim orders permitted him to continue operating the fair price shop during the pendency of the petition.

The Court applied the governing allotment policy and the requirements contained in the relevant advertisement, application form and general instructions for allotment of fair price shops to educated unemployed persons.

The Court held that an eligibility condition cannot ordinarily be treated as mandatory where the prescribed form and instructions do not require the applicant to submit the relevant document.

It further distinguished a domicile certificate, which establishes residence in the State of Gujarat, from evidence of local residence in a particular village.

The Court also applied the principle that an administrative decision must be based on relevant material, correct findings and proper application of mind; an allotment cannot be cancelled on an irrelevant or unsupported ground.

The Court found that the impugned authority had relied on the petitioner’s failure to submit a domicile certificate even though neither the application form nor the general instructions made such submission mandatory.

In any event, the subsequently produced domicile certificate established that the petitioner was a resident of Gujarat, but did not determine whether he was a local resident of Nanosana.

The objection regarding the Employment Exchange certificate was also unsustainable because the petitioner produced his Employment Exchange registration, which had remained valid at least until 2012, and the respondents could not identify any material showing that he was ineligible or had concealed relevant facts.

As to local residence, the Court relied on the petitioner’s election card bearing the Nanosana address and noted that respondent No. 1 had not properly considered the contrary objection based on the voters’ list of Palanpur city.

Accordingly, the cancellation order was founded on an incorrect finding and non-application of mind.

The material on record also sufficiently established his status as an educated unemployed person and his local residence at village Nanosana.

The order dated 11 August 2010 was therefore quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed, Rule was made absolute, and no order as to costs was passed.

If the petitioner was still operating the fair price shop pursuant to the original allotment order dated 23 February 2010, he was permitted to continue operating it.