Vasantrao Ganpatrao Dhole vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1476 Bom

                                             1                                 WP2403.15.odt




                                                                                      
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.




                                                             
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2403 OF 2015

    PETITIONER               : Vasantrao  Ganpatrao Dhole,




                                                            
                               Aged about 52 years, 
                               Fair price shop keeper,
                               R/o Lohi, Tah. Darwha,
                               Dist. Yavatmal.




                                                 
                                              - VERSUS -

    RESPONDENTS
                              
                             : 1] State of Maharashtra,
                                  through Secretary for Food and Civil
                                  Supply Department, Mantralaya,
                             
                                  Mumbai.

                                    2] Deputy Commissioner for Food and
                                       Civil Supply, Commissionerate,
                                       Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
      


                                    3] District Supply Officer, Yavatmal.
   



                                    4] Pandhari Haribhau Sinhe
                                       R/o Lohi, Tq. Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal.





                      -------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. C. N. Adgokar, Asst.Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3
           Mr. K. P. Mahalle, Advocate for the respondent no.4
                      ------------------------------------------------------------





                     CORAM :    PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

                     DATE    :  APRIL 13, 2016.


    ORAL JUDGMENT


                    Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.     Looking   to   the

limited controversy involved, with the consent of the learned counsel for

2 WP2403.15.odt

the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of

admission itself.

2] By this petition, the petitioner impugns the orders passed

by the Hon'ble Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, dated 26.07.2014

and 12.05.2014 in review and revision respectively, so also the order

passed by the respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer, dated

29.09.2012.

3] Few facts giving rise to the present petition are that the

petitioner runs a fair price shop at village Lohi, Tahsil Darwha, Dist.

Yavatmal. On receiving certain complaints, the respondent no.3 -

District Supply Officer, Yavatmal inspected the shop of the petitioner

and verified records. The respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer

finding certain irregularities issued notice to the petitioner. Though, the

petitioner replied to the notice, as the reply was not satisfactory, the

respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer, by holding that the petitioner

has committed breach of the conditions of the licence, by order dated

29.09.2012 forfeited the amount of security deposit. It was observed by

the respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer that in case the petitioner

is found indulged in the acts repetitively , an action for cancellation of

3 WP2403.15.odt

the licence would be initiated. Being aggrieved by the order of

respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer, the respondent no.4 herein

approached the respondent no.2 - Deputy Commissioner (Supply),

Amravati Division, Amravati by filing revision. The respondent no.2

allowed the said revision by order dated 20.01.2014 and by setting

aside the order passed by the respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer,

dated 29.09.2012, modified the order to the effect of cancellation of fair

price shop licence granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner

being aggrieved by the order of the respondent no.2 - Deputy

Commissioner (Supply), approached the Hon'ble Minister by filing

revision. The Hon'ble Minister, on hearing the parties i.e the petitioner,

the respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer and the respondent no.4,

allowed the revision application partly, by order dated 12.05.2014. The

Hon'ble Minister, by setting aside the order passed by the respondent

no.2 - Deputy Commissioner (Supply), dated 20.01.2014, maintained

the order passed by the respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer, dated

29.09.2012. The Hon'ble Minister further imposed penalty on the

petitioner to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. The respondent no.4 herein sought

review of the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister and the Hon'ble

Minister by order dated. 26.07.2014, though partly allowed the review

application, the result was cancelling the fair price shop licence of the

4 WP2403.15.odt

petitioner.

4] Mr. Vaishnav, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the only reason for allowing the review application by the Hon'ble

Minister is reference to certain complaints made against the petitioner. It was

the submission of the learned counsel that the reason adopted by the Hon'ble

Minister was a new material and without assigning any reason for accepting

that material, the order was passed by the Hon'ble Minister and the same

caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.

5] Mr. Mahalle, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4, in

support of the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister, submitted that the

Hon'ble Minister, by exercising powers under Clause 24 of the Maharashtra

Scheduled Commodities, Food (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1975, on

discovery of new and important material, can certainly pass the order of

review. The learned counsel submits that there was material before the

Hon'ble Minister in the nature of complaints against the petitioner to show

that in spite of warning issued to the petitioner, he was found indulged in the

acts of deficiencies.

6] On hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as the

learned Assistant Government Pleader and on going through the material

placed on record, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Hon'ble

5 WP2403.15.odt

Minister, allowing the review application, is unsustainable. Perusal of the

order of the Hon'ble Minister shows that the Hon'ble Minister only refers to

the complaints lodged by the cardholders. It further shows that it was the

submission of the review applicant i.e. respondent no.4, that in spite of

warning issued by the District Supply officer, the petitioner was indulged in

the activities of deficiencies. There is reference in the order that the

respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer had conducted an enquiry, but it

nowhere refers about the report of the District Supply officer. Though, it is

submitted that there was repetitive act of complaints against the petitioner

and the cardholders approached the respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer,

it was necessary for the Hon'ble Minister to atleast refer to the report of the

respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer, if there was material to suggest that

on receiving the complaints from the cardholders, the District Supply Officer

conducted an inspection. There was considerable merit in the submission of

the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Hon'ble

Minister only refers to the complaints. He submits that there is every

possibility that the respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer, on verifying the

report either might have submitted an opinion in favour of the complainants

or he could have arrived at some other opinion, if the material was not

supporting the complaints. Thus, it was necessary for the Hon'ble Minister to

refer to the report of the District Supply Officer, he being an independent

government official, discharging the duties in relation to the supply of food

grains under Public Distribution System. Considering all these aspects, in my

6 WP2403.15.odt

opinion, the order on review application, passed by the Hon'ble Minister,

dated 26.07.2014 is unsustainable and the matter needs to be remanded back

for fresh consideration.

7] In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated

26.07.2014, impugned in the present petition is set aside. The interest of the

parties would be served by directing the Hon'ble Minister, Food and Civil

Supplies, on the backdrop of the fact that the respondent no.4 submits that

there were certain complaints against the petitioner, to pass the order afresh,

needless to state by giving equal opportunity of hearing to the parties,

considering that the material relates to distribution of food grains to the

cardholders. The Hon'ble Minister may undertake this exercise as early as

possible and within a period of 10 (Ten) weeks from appearance of the parties

before him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent no.4

submit that the parties would appear before the Hon'ble Minister on 3 rd of

May, 2016 and would act as per the directions of the Hon'ble Minister.

Till the Hon'ble Minister decides the review application afresh,

the order passed by the respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer, dated

29.09.2012 would operate the field.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

JUDGE Diwale