Udebhan S/O Somla Chavhan vs Honble State Minister (Food, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3862 Bom

                                    1                                          wp3397.14




                                                                            
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                    
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     WRIT PETITION NO.3397 OF 2014




                                                   
     Udebhan s/o Somla Chavhan,
     Aged about 52 years, 
     Occupation - Business, 




                                       
     R/o At Post - Sandwa, Tq. - Pusad,
     District - Yavatmal.     ig                             ....       PETITIONER


                         VERSUS
                            
     1) Hon'ble State Minister,
         (Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer
      

         Protection) Department, Mantralaya,
         Mumbai.
   



     2) State of Maharashtra,
         through its Secretary (Food, Civil
         Supplies & Consumer Protection)





     3) Deputy Commissioner (Supply),
         Amravati Division, Amravati.

     4) District Supply Officer,





         Yavatmal.  

     5) Raju Bapurao Dahake,
         Age - Major, Reporter at Post-
         Sadwa, Tq. - Pusad, District - Yavatmal.            ....       RESPONDENTS
     ____________________________________________________________
               Shri Tejas Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner,
             Shri A.D. Sonak, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 to 4,
                         None for the respondent No.5.
      ______________________________________________________________



    ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2016                    ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:27:18 :::
                                             2                                           wp3397.14




                                                                                     
                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 15 JULY, 2016 th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri Tejas Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner

and Shri A.D. Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent

Nos.1 to 4. None appears for the respondent No.5 though served.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the

subordinate authorities and maintained by the Hon'ble Minister,

cancelling the retail kerosene licence of the petitioner. The licence is

cancelled mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not supplied

kerosene to the cardholders for a period of about one and half month.

According to the petitioner, he had lifted the quota of 1000 liters of

kerosene on 11-10-2008, he distributed about 600 liters of kerosene to

the cardholders on 13-10-2008 and 330 liters of kerosene on

14-10-2008, that the sale register in which entries were taken, was lost

on 14-10-2008 and accordingly it was reported to the respondent No.4

and therefore, the subsequent quota of kerosene was not lifted and

kerosene was not distributed to the cardholders for the period of about

3 wp3397.14

one and half month till 30-11-2008. It is submitted on behalf of the

petitioner that the balance quantity of kerosene which remained with

the petitioner from the quota lifted on 11-10-2008 was distributed to

the cardholders on or after 30-11-2008. The non-distribution of

kerosene to the cardholders for the period of about one and half month

is considered to be a major default and on that ground the licence of

the petitioner is cancelled.

4. The Hon'ble Minister has considered the relevant aspects

in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order. Except for recording that

non-distribution of kerosene to the cardholders for the period of about

one and half month is a major default, it is not the case of the

respondents that the petitioner has misappropriated the quota of

kerosene. The respondent authorities rely on statements of four

persons to substantiate the action taken against the petitioner. The

statements on which the respondent authorities are relying are

recorded at the back of the petitioner and the petitioner has not been

given opportunity to cross-examine the persons on whose statements

the respondent authorities are relying to take the drastic action of

cancelling the licence granted to the petitioner. The action of the

respondent authorities has civil consequences and therefore, it was

4 wp3397.14

necessary for the respondent authorities to give opportunity to the

petitioner to defend his case. In paragraph No.6 of the impugned

order, the Hon'ble Minister has recorded that the other charges

levelled against the petitioner are minor and inconsequential.

5. In the above facts, I am of the view that the impugned

orders are not sustainable.

Hence, the following order :

(i) The impugned orders are set aside.

(ii) The retail kerosene licence of the petitioner is restored.

(iii) The respondent authorities are directed to take

consequential action immediately.

(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

                                                                           JUDGE



    adgokar





                                              5                                           wp3397.14




                                                                                      
                                             CERTIFICATE




                                                             

"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment."

Uploaded by : P.M. Adgokar. Uploaded on : 18-07-2016.

P.A..