AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the records.
Mr. Nikunj Berlia, learned A.G.P. and Ms. Sarda Sha, learned advocate are engaged in this matter on behalf of the State. Their appearances be accordingly regularized from the office of the Government Pleader.
The petitioner in the present case challenges, inter alia, the inaction on the part of the authorities in not serving a copy of the decision already taken in respect of a representation dated 09.05.2018.
The issue involved herein is with regard to tagging of the ration cards of the petitioner which have been detagged from its Fair Price Shop Licence due to non renewal of the FPS licence.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the basis of representation dated 9.5.2018, the personal hearing was concluded on 24.09.2025 before the authority concerned. Despite conclusion of hearing on 24.9,2025, the decision taken thereon has not been communicated to the petitioner till date.
Since such issue requires an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the concerned authority to resolve the issue, the petitioner made a representation and after hearing on 24.09.2025, a further representation dated 2.12.2025 was made before the authority concerned to take necessary steps in accordance with law for tagging of ration cards with the licence of the petitioner that has already been detagged due to non-renewal of the FPS licence.
Prayer is made for direction upon respondent no. 5 to communicate the decision already taken and to take necessary steps for retagging of ration cards with the FPS licence of the petitioner herein.
Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents takes a fair stand and does not object to the prayer made by the petitioner for communication of the decision. The decision if already taken, shall be communicated and if not taken, the same shall be decided in accordance with law.
Having heard the parties and upon perusing the records, this Court finds that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case warranting an interference at this stage. By balancing the equities and for securing the ends of justice, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to non communication and decision and detagging of ration card, needs to be addressed by the competent authority.
In view of the above this Court directs the respondent no. 5 to communicate such decision on or before 30.11.2026.
However, it is made clear if the decision has not been taken by the authority concerned, such decision shall be forthwith be taken and be communicated within a time bound manner as mentioned in this order.
The writ petition stands disposed of without going into the merits of this case.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.