Bombay High Court
Mr. Vinod Ramji Gala vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 5 April, 2016
Bench: R.M. Savant
wp-3687-16-(908)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3687 OF 2016
Mr. Vinod Ramji Gala )
Adult Indian Inhabitant aged 56 years )
Residing at 72/73, 2nd floor Shroff )
Building, Sane Guruji Marg, Lalbaug, )
Mumbai 400 012 )
(A.R.S. No.31 E-122) ) ..Petitioner
Vs.
1 The State of Maharashtra )
2 The Dy. Controller of Rationing
"E" regiion Chanchal Smruti Building
)
)
1st floor, G. D. Ambedkar Marg, Wadala )
Mumbai 400 031 )
3 The Hon'ble Minister )
Food and Civil Supply, Maharashtra )
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 ) ..Respondents
Mr. M. V. Aiya for the Petitioner
Mrs. S. S. Bhende AGP for the Respondents
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.
DATE : 5th APRIL, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties
made returnable forthwith and heard.
2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order
dated 23-2-2016 passed by the Hon'ble Minister Food and Civil Supplies and
mmj 1 of 7
wp-3687-16-(908)
Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra. By the said order, the
Revision Application filed by the Petitioner came to be allowed, resultantly the
order dated 9-10-2013 passed by the Deputy Controller of Rationing "E"
Region, Wadala, came to be set aside and the directions as contained in clause
(4) of the impugned order came to be issued. The Petitioner is aggrieved by
the directions issued vide clause (4) of the impugned order in the matter of
directing the Deputy Controller to recover the security deposit, the amount of
Rs.38160/- towards the misappropriated wheat, and Rs.25,000/- as penalty.
3 The Petitioner herein is running a rationing shop being No.31-E-
122 in the name and style of M/s. Ramji Shivji & Co. situated at 909, Shop
No.6 Katrak Road, Wadala (West) Mumbai 400 031. A show cause notice came
to be issued to the Petitioner on the ground that there was a misappropriation
of 2120 kgs of wheat which misappropriation found on a sight visit to the
Petitioner's shop by the officials from the office of the Deputy Controller of
Rationing. The value of the misappropriated wheat was to the extent of
Rs.38160/- at Rs.18 per kg. The said show cause notice was also founded on
the door visit i.e. the visit to the residences of the card holders by the officials
from the office of the Deputy Controller of Rationing wherein the card holders
had signed in acknowledgement of the fact that no wheat has been received by
them under the ration cards held by them. The Petitioner replied to the said
show cause notice and in the hearing which took place pursuant thereto the
mmj 2 of 7
wp-3687-16-(908)
Petitioner had requested the Respondent No.2 to provide the record of the
alleged door visit as also the other details in respect of the said door visit. It
seems that no such document was produced by the officials from the office of
the Respondent No.2 nor furnished to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 by
his order dated 9-10-2013 suspended the licence of the Petitioner and directed
the payment of misappropriated value of the wheat i.e. Rs.38160/- as also
forfeiture of Rs.5000/- which was the security deposit. The said order of the
Respondent No.2 is dated 9-10-2013.
4 The Petitioner aggrieved by the said order dated 9-10-2013 filed a
Revision Application before the State Government i.e. the Hon'ble Minister for
Food and Supplies and Consumer Protection Government of Maharashtra. The
Revisionary Authority i.e. the Hon'ble Minister as indicated above has by the
impugned order dated 23-2-2016 has set aside the order dated 9-10-2013
passed by the Respondent No.2 and directed the Respondent No.2 to restore
the Petitioner's fair price shop but on the condition that the security deposit,
the amount for the misappropriated wheat and Rs.25,000/- as penalty is
recovered from the Petitioner. However, it is required to be noted that the
restoration of the Petitioner's shop is granted on the ground that the Deputy
Controller did not find any irregularities in the conduct of the shop by the
Petitioner. The Revisionary Authority has therefore directed that till a re-
inquiry is conducted, the Petitioner should be allowed to conduct his shop. As
mmj 3 of 7
wp-3687-16-(908)
indicated above the Petitioner is aggrieved by clause (4) of the order of the
Revisionary Authority which directions are to the Deputy Controller i.e. the
Respondent No.2 to make recovery of the amounts from the Petitioner.
5 On behalf of the Petitioner a contention is sought to be raised that
the order passed by the Respondent No.2 of suspending the Petitioner's licence
and forfeiting the security deposit, has been passed without giving an
opportunity to the Petitioner as the material on which reliance is placed i.e.
the record of the door visit has not been furnished to the Petitioner. It was
therefore the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the
order passed by the Respondent No.2 has been passed in breach of the
principles of natural justice.
6 The Learned AGP Mrs. Bhende seek to support the impugned
order however on the aspect of the alleged adverse material not been
furnished to the Petitioner, the Learned AGP was not able to justify the same
with any deal of conviction. However, it was the submission of the Learned
AGP that the Maharashtra Food Grain Rationing 2 nd order, 1966 envisages the
modality of a door visit to find out whether there is a proper distribution of the
food grains under the Public Distribution System.
7 Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I have
mmj 4 of 7
wp-3687-16-(908)
considered the rival contentions. As indicated above, the Revisionary Authority
has deemed it fit to restore the shop of the Petitioner by setting aside the order
dated 9-10-2013 passed by the Respondent No.2. This was on the basis that
the Respondent No.2 has not found any irregularities in the conduct of the
shop by the Petitioner. However, the Revisionary Authority in paragraph (6) of
the impugned order has observed that there is a misappropriation of 2120 kgs
of wheat whose value is to the extent of Rs.38,160/-. The Revisionary
Authority has acceded to the request made by the Petitioner to be permitted to
reopen the shop. However, the Revisionary Authority has observed that the
same would be subject to a re-inquiry conducted. Since the re-enquiry would
have serious consequences for the Petitioner. The least that is expected of the
authorities is that the Petitioner is furnished with the adverse material if any
which is against the Petitioner. However, a reading of the order passed by the
Respondent No.2 does not indicate that any such material was furnished to the
Petitioner which the Petitioner could have dealt with. The authority seems to
have acted only on the basis of the statement which have been recorded
during the door visits of the residences of the card holders.
8 In my view therefore, the forfeiting of security deposit as also
levying penalty on the Petitioner of Rs.25,000/- is uncalled for in view of the
fact that the re-inquiry has been ordered in respect of the show cause notice
which has been issued to the Petitioner. In my view, therefore, the impugned
mmj 5 of 7
wp-3687-16-(908)
order in so far as it directs the Respondent No.2 to recover an amount of
Rs.5000/- as also Rs.25,000/- as penalty would have to be quashed and set
aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Hence the following directions:
(i) The order passed by the Revisionary Authority having regard to the
directions contained in clause (4) to the extent of directing the Respondent
No.2 to recover the amount of Rs.5000/- as security deposit and Rs.25,000/-
as penalty is quashed and set aside. However, the Petitioner would be liable to
deposit the amount of Rs.38,160/- with the Respondent No.2.
(ii) The liability of the Petitioner for the payment of Rs.38160/- as also the
forfeiture of the security deposit as also the penalty would be contingent upon
the result of the re-inquiry.
(iii) The Respondent No.2 to conduct re-inquiry by following the principles
of natural justice by providing the Petitioner material that is against him as
also hearing to the Petitioner. The re-inquiry to be completed expeditiously by
the Respondent No.2.
(iv) In the event, the order is passed against the Petitioner in the re-inquiry,
the same not to be given effect to for a period of two weeks of the
communication of the order to the Petitioner.
mmj 6 of 7
wp-3687-16-(908)
(v) It is made clear that the inquiry would be restricted to the
misappropriation of 2120 kgs wheat.
9 The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is accordingly
made absolute with parties to bear their respective costs of the Petition.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
mmj 7 of 7
