Bombay High Court
Vishwanath Vithoba Kambale vs Honble Minister, Food And Civil ... on 14 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp6450.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6450 OF 2015
Vishwanath Vithoba Kambale,
aged 60 yrs., Occu.Agriculturist,
R/o Regaon, Tq. Malegaon,
Distt. Washim. PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1] Hon'ble Minister, Food and
Civil Supply, Consumer
Protection Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] Deputy Commissioner (Supply)
Amravati Division Amravati.
3] District Supply Officer,
Washim Tq. & Distt. Washim.
4] Kailasrao Rustamrao Ghuge
aged 55 yrs. Occu.Agriculture.
5] Prakash Bhasu Pawar,
aged 54 yrs. Occu. Agriculture.
Both R/o Regaon, Tq. Malegaon
Distt. Washim. RESPONDENTS.
Shri A. V. Gawande, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. T. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Shri R. N. Ghuge, Advocate for the respondent no. 4.
CORAM: A. S. CHANDURKAR J.
Dated : JUNE 14, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the
wp6450.15
parties.
2] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2015 passed
by the respondent no.1 in the revision application preferred by the
respondent no. 4.
3] It is the case of the petitioner that the authorisation issued in
favour of the respondent no.1 for running a fair price shop had been
suspended. Said respondent no.4 had thereafter applied for restoration and
renewal of his authorisation. By order dated 08.06.2012 the District Supply
Officer restored the authorisation in favour of the respondent no. 4. The
petitioner, respondent no.5 and two others challenged the aforesaid order by
filing a revision application before the Deputy Commissioner. By order dated
28.02.2013 this revision application came to be dismissed. The Deputy
Commissioner however directed the District Supply Officer to take necessary
action against those who were found responsible with a further direction to
cancel authorisation of the respondent no. 4. The respondent no. 4
challenged the order by filing a revision petition before the State
Government. In these proceedings the petitioner was not impleaded. By
order dated 07.09.2015 the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has
been set aside by the respondent no. 1. Being aggrieved the present writ
petition has been filed.
4] Shri A. V. Gawande, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner along with others had challenged the order dated
08.06.2012 passed by the District Supply Officer. In said proceedings the
wp6450.15
authorisation of the respondent no.4 came to be cancelled. In view of this
direction it was not necessary for the petitioner to file a revision though the
revision petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the Deputy
Commissioner. It was submitted that the petitioner ought to have been
impleaded in the proceedings that were filed by respondent no.4. By not
being so impleaded the petitioner was not in a position to defend direction
no. 3 in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
5] Shri R. N. Ghuge, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4
supported the impugned order. According to him the petitioner was not a
necessary party as he had accepted the rejection of his revision petition. He
submitted that the order passed by the State Government did not cause any
prejudice to the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason
to interfere with the impugned order.
Ms. T. Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared
for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
6] The facts referred to hereinabove indicate that the order dated
28.02.2013 came to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner in proceedings
initiated by the present petitioner. As per direction No. 3 therein, the
authorisation in favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled and his security
deposit came to be forfeitted. Hence, even though the revision petition filed
by the petitioner was dismissed, there was no occasion for the petitioner to
challenge the said order as the authorisation of the respondent no.4 was also
cancelled. It was therefore necessary for the respondent no.4 to have
wp6450.15
impleaded the petitioner in said case. If the petitioner would have been
impleaded in the said proceedings, he could have justified direction no. 3 that
was issued in the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cancelling
the authorisation of the respondent no.4. On this ground the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
7] Accordingly the following order is passed:
The order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the respondent no. 1 is set
aside. The revision application filed by the respondent no.4 is restored for
being decided a fresh. The respondent no. 4 would be at liberty to implead
the petitioner as non-applicant in these proceedings.
The parties undertake to appear before the respondent no.1 on
04.07.2016 to enable the said proceedings to be decided. The revision
petition shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. Till
the revision petition is decided, no steps shall be taken for issuance of fresh
proclamation and authorisation of the fair price shop in question in favour of
any party. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
svk
wp6450.15
