Facts
The petitioner challenged three consecutive orders: the District Supply Officer’s order (dated 14.09.2020), the Collector of Anand’s appellate order (dated 15.12.2020), and finally, the Deputy Secretary’s revisional order (dated 23.03.2026).
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner contended that during the revision proceedings (Revision Application No. 28 of 2021), an adjournment was requested on 13.02.2026.
Source reference: p. 2-3However, the Revisional Authority (Respondent No. 2) failed to pass any order on the adjournment request and proceeded to issue a final judgment on 23.03.2026 without hearing the petitioner.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the order passed by the Revisional Authority was in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of an opportunity for a hearing.
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The court applied the fundamental Principle of Natural Justice, specifically the doctrine of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Source reference: p. 2The core legal rule dictates that an adjudicating authority must provide a fair opportunity of hearing and must pass reasoned orders after considering the submissions of the parties; failure to address an adjournment request before passing a final order constitutes a gross procedural irregularity.
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The Court examined the original record produced by the Assistant Government Pleader, which confirmed that an adjournment application was filed on 13.02.2026.
Source reference: p. 3Upon review, the Court found that Respondent No. 2 neither accepted nor rejected the adjournment request, but instead moved directly to pass the impugned final order.
Source reference: p. 3The Court reasoned that this omission effectively deprived the petitioner of their right to be heard, thereby substantiating the claim of a gross violation of natural justice.
Source reference: p. 3-4Consequently, the Court determined that the merits of the case could not be upheld if the underlying process was procedurally flawed.
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department.
The matter is remanded back to Respondent No. 2 to decide Revision Application No. 28 of 2021 afresh from the stage prevailing on 13.02.2026.
Source reference: p. 4Respondent No. 2 is directed to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order within three months.
Source reference: p. 4No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
GANGASAGAR DEVENDRA PANDYAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in