Bombay High Court
Gajanan S/O Namdeorao Thakre vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., And 4 ... on 8 December, 2009
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 1950/09 1 Judgment Dt/- 17/07/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1950/2009
Gajanan s/o Namdeorao Thakre,
Aged about 41 years, Occ. Cultivator,
R/o Chandai, Tahsil Mangrulpir,
Distt. Washim. ... PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and
Consumer Protection Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply),
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. The District Supplies Officer,
Washim, District Washim.
4. The Tahsildar,
Karanja, Distt. Washim.
5. Ramprasad s/o Ramchandra Chavan,
Aged Adult, Occ. Business &
Cultivator, R/o Chandai, Tahsil
Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. A.P. Tathod, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. D.M. Kale, A.G.P. For respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. Firdos Mirza, Advocate, for the respondent no. 5.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.
DATE : 17th JULY, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
The petition is heard finally at the stage of
WP 1950/09 2 Judgment Dt/- 17/07/2009
admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order
passed by the respondent no.1, the Minister for Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Protection, on 2/3/2009, allowing a
review application filed by the respondent no.5 and setting
aside the order passed by the respondent no.1 on 7/1/2008
by which the revision application filed by the respondent
no.5, was dismissed by the respondent no.1.
3. The respondent no.4, the Tahsildar, Karanja, by
an order dated 31/3/1998, had cancelled the authorization
granted in favour of the respondent no.5 to run a fair price
shop. This order was passed after making an enquiry on
the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner and certain
other persons of the village. The Sub Divisional Officer, in a
revision application preferred by the respondent no.5
remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry.
The Tahsildar, again by the order dated 4/7/1998, warned
the respondent no.5 and permitted the respondent no.5 to
run the fair price shop after giving an undertaking that he
WP 1950/09 3 Judgment Dt/- 17/07/2009
will not commit any illegality or irregularity in future. Again,
by an order dated 20/10/2003, the authorization of the
respondent no.5 was cancelled after making a detailed
enquiry. The respondent no.1, however, allowed the
revision application filed by the respondent no.5 on the
ground that he did not have any other source of income and
it was not proper to cancel the authorization. The order
passed by the respondent no.1 was challenged in a writ
petition bearing Writ Petition No. 2845/2004. The matter
was again remanded to the respondent no.1 by this Court
with a direction to decide the same on merits. The
respondent no.1, after hearing the parties, rejected the
revision filed by the respondent no.5, by the order dated
7/1/2008. A review application was filed on 2/3/2008 by the
respondent no.5 against the order passed by the
respondent no.1 on 7/1/2008. The review application was
allowed and the respondent no.1 set aside the earlier order
dated 7/1/2008 and permitted the respondent no.5 to run
the fair price shop.
WP 1950/09 4 Judgment Dt/- 17/07/2009
4. Shri Tathod, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the respondent no.1 had no jurisdiction to
entertain the review application filed by the respondent
no.5 on 2/3/2009, seeking a review of the order dated
7/1/2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the provisions of Clause 24(2) of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order
1975, as amended in the year 2007, to canvass that the
respondent no.1 could have either suo motu, or on an
application made by the parties, reviewed the order passed
by the respondent no.1, only in case the application was
filed before the respondent no.1 within a period of one year
from the date of the order which was sought to be
reviewed. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Clause 24(2) of the Order of 1975 clearly
stipulates that the Government does not have jurisdiction to
review the order after the expiry of one year from the date
of the order which is sought to be reviewed.
5. Shri Mirza, the learned counsel for the respondent
no.5, had nothing much to say on the legal aspect of the
matter, but submitted that the respondent no.5 may be
WP 1950/09 5 Judgment Dt/- 17/07/2009
granted liberty to challenge the order passed by the
respondent no.1 on 7/1/2008 in appropriate proceedings.
6. Shri D.M. Kale, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1,
however, supported the impugned order, and sought for the
dismissal of the writ petition.
7.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
on a perusal of Clause 24 (2) of the Order of 1975, it is clear
that the respondent no.1 did not have jurisdiction to
entertain the review application filed by the respondent
no.5 on 2/3/2009. It is clearly provided in Clause 24(2) of
the Order of 1975 that an order could be revised or
reviewed by the respondent no.1 at any time before the
expiry of one year from the date of any order which is
sought to be revised or reviewed. In the instant case, the
order which was sought to be reviewed was passed on
7/1/2008. In such circumstances, the respondent no.1 had
no jurisdiction to even entertain the review application filed
on 2/3/2009. The order passed by the respondent no.1 on
2/3/2009 cannot be sustained.
WP 1950/09 6 Judgment Dt/- 17/07/2009
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 on 2/3/2009
is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent no.5
would, however, be free to challenge the order passed by
the respondent no.1 on 7/1/2008, in appropriate
proceedings.
9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with
no order as to costs.
(Vasanti A. Naik)
JUDGE
RMP
