1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief/s:-
"20 (A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.4.2012 passed by respondent No.1 at annexure-E (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 16.4.2012 passed by respondent No.1 at annexure-E.
(C).............
(D)............"
3. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of rampant illegality and irregularity committed by respondent No.4 in running fair price shop, the petitioner had made complaint. The said complaint / application was prosecuted by the first authority and the licence granted in favour of the respondent No.4 was cancelled. The petitioner has further claimed that aggrieved by the said decision, respondent No.4 had preferred an Appeal. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also pointed out that present petitioner was impleaded as party opponent in the said Appeal preferred by respondent No.4. It appears from the record that the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the order of first authority. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4, feeling aggrieved by the order of Appellate Authority, preferred revision application however with ulterior intention the respondent No.4 did not implead present petitioner in the revision proceeding before the Revisional Authority.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that since the petitioner - original complainant was not before the Revisional Authority, correct and complete facts related to the illegalities and irregularities being perpetrated by respondent No.4 in running fair price shop, were not properly placed before the Revisional Authority. The petitioner believes that even complete facts were not placed before the Revisional Authority or distorted picture was presented before the Revisional Authority, as a result of which the Revisional Authority allowed the revision application.
5. The petitioner has approached with present petition against the order passed by the Revisional Authority on the ground that the respondent No.4, who is indulging into committing irregularity in running fair price shop, will again start his activities. Learned advocate for the petitioner made serious grievance that the State Government will not take out any proceeding against respondent No.4 inasmuch as it amounts to taking out proceeding against its own authority and that therefore the petitioner has taken out present proceeding so that the order dated 16.4.2012 passed by the Revisional Authority may not remain unchallenged and the Court may examine the legality, propriety and maintainability of the order passed by the revsional authority. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner also vehemently submitted that actually the Revisional Authority ought to have inquire as to why the original complainant - who was party to the appeal proceedings - was not impleaded, but the said authority failed to ask about the said defect in the revision application. So as to substantiate the legal right to take out and maintain present petition against the order of Revisional Authority where the petitioner was not impleaded as party by respondent No.4, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision in case between Keshabhai Pinabhai Solanki vs. Dahyaji Babuji Thakor (2012 [1] GLR 719) and submitted that the petitioner is justified and entitled in law to maintain present petition.
6. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner herein was not impleaded as party opponent in the proceeding before the Revisional Authority and according to the petitioner correct and complete facts were not placed before the Revisional Authority, it was inquired from the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had made any application before the Revisional Authority to implead him as party opponent in view of the fact that he was original complainant and was also party to the Appeal proceeding. In reply to the querry learned advocate for the petitioner candidly admitted that he was not aware about the revision proceedings having been taken out by the respondent and that therefore the application could not be made.
Learned advocate for the petitioner fairly submitted that petitioner would make appropriate application before the Revisional Authority requesting the Revisional Authority to review order and implead the petitioner as appropriate and necessary party to the proceedings in view of the fact that the petitioner was party to the original proceeding as well as the Appeal proceedings. Therefore, he seeks permission to withdraw the petition at this stage.
7. Permission to withdraw present petition is granted with a liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the Revisional Authority. If such application is made within two weeks, the Revisional Authority may consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Authority on such application, it would be open to the petitioner to take out appropriate proceeding.
With the aforesaid clarification the petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* Top