Bombay High Court
Vivek Nandkishor Navghare vs The Honble Minister Food Civil ... on 6 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp255.05
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 255
OF 20
05
Vivek Nandkishor Navghare,
aged 24 yrs. Occu. Unemployed
R/o Pangri Navghare, Tal.
Malegaon, Distt. Washim. PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1] The Hon'ble Minister Food,
Civil Supplies and Consumer
Protection, Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Deputy Commissioner
(Supplies) Amravati Division,
Amravati.
3] The District Supplies Officer
Washim.
4] Rambhau Natthuji Navghare,
Adult, R/o Pangre Navghare,
Tal. Malegaon, Distt. Washim. RESPONDENTS.
Shri R. N. Ghuge, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Tripti Udeshi, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate for the respondent no. 4.
CORAM: A. S. CHANDURKAR J.
Dated : JUNE 06, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2004 passed
wp255.05
by the respondent no.1 in proceedings under the Maharashtra Scheduled
Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975. By the said order the
authorisation for running a fair price shop which was issued to the petitioner
by the District Supply Officer and maintained in appeal by the Deputy
Commissioner (Supplies), Amravati has been set aside.
2] On 01.12.2003 a proclamation came to be issued for sanctioning
a fair price shop at village Pangari, Tahsil Malegaon District Washim. As per
said proclamation preference was to be given to various categories of
applicants which included project affected persons. The preference
thereafter was to be given to educated unemployed persons. The
petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 applied to the District Supply Officer
pursuant to said proclamation. The petitioner was treated as falling at Sr.
No. 1 while the respondent no. 4 was treated as falling at Sr. No. 8. In terms
thereof the petitioner was granted authorisation to run the fair price shop.
The respondent no.4 along with one another filed appeal before the
respondent no.3. The order of authorisation however came to be maintained
as the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent
no.4. Being aggrieved, the respondent no. 4 filed a revision application
before the State Government. By the impugned order the revision
application has been allowed and the authorisation in favour of the petitioner
has been set aside.
3] Shri R. N. Ghuge, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was a project affected applicant and in terms of the
wp255.05
proclamation he was at Sr. No. 1 in the preference list. The respondent no. 4
was already running a fair price shop and therefore he was at Sr. No. 8 in the
list of preference. After considering these aspects the respondent nos. 2 and
3 had denied relief to the respondent no.4. However, the Hon'ble Minister
without considering these aspects and only on the ground that the
respondent no.4 was already running a fair price shop set aside these orders.
He submitted that the petitioner was entitled for the authorisation in terms of
the proclamation pursuant to which the parties had applied. He further
submitted that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court on
23.03.2005, the petitioner continues to run the fair price shop.
Shri A. M. Ghare, the learned counsel for respondent no. 4
supported the impugned order. According to him as the respondent no.4 was
having the experience of running a fair price shop his claim was upheld by
the Hon'ble Minister. Convenience of the card holders was taken into
consideration while granting relief to the respondent no. 4. Moreover, the
petitioner was still taking education when he had moved the application and
hence his claim was liable to be rejected.
Ms. Tripti Udeshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondent nos. 1 to 3 also supported the impugned order.
4] Having heard the respective counsel and having perused the
proclamation dated 01.11.2003 it can be seen that preference was given to
project affected persons by placing them at Sr. No. 1. The petitioner had
applied in said category which finding has been recorded by respondent nos.
wp255.05
2 and 3 in their orders. As the respondent no. 4 was already running a fair
price shop he was placed at Sr. No. 8. The Hon'ble Minister while
considering the revision application has failed to take into consideration the
preferences as mentioned in the proclamation. The respondent no.4 has been
preferred merely on the ground that he was having experience of running a
fair price shop. The proclamation however does not contemplate grant of
any weightage to an applicant who is already running a fair price shop. It is,
therefore, clear that the Hon'ble Minister set aside the orders passed by the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 without considering the proclamation dated
01.12.2003. The impugned order is clearly contrary to proclamation itself
and same therefore cannot be sustained.
6] In view of aforesaid, the order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the
respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside. The order passed by the District
Supply Officer dated 05.05.2004 stands restored. Rule is made absolute in
aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
svk
wp255.05
