Bombay High Court
Prakash Shyamrao Layle vs State Of Maha.Through Secretary, ... on 15 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1 wp.5892.15.jud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5892 OF 2015
Petitioner : Prakash Shyamrao Layle
Aged 56 years, Occupation : Labour,
R/o Tawlar, Tq. Achalpur, District Amravati.
ig -- Versus --
Respondents : 1] State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Food, Civil Supplies and
Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] Hon'ble Minister,
Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3] Deputy Commissioner (Supplies),
Amravati Division, Amravati.
4] District Supply Officer, Amravati.
5] Shankar Vithalrao Raut,
Aged 39 years, Occ : Business,
R/o Tawlar, Tq. Achalpur, District Amravati.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4
Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for respondent No.5
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
C ORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 15
JUNE, 2016.
th
2 wp.5892.15.jud
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
01] Rule. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for
the parties.
02] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03/08/2015
passed by respondent No.2 thereby partly allowing the revision application
filed by respondent No.5 and consequently restoring the authorisation
issued in favour of said respondent for running a fair price shop.
03] It is the case of the petitioner that he along with other
villagers had made various complaints with regard to the manner in which
the fair price shop which was being run by respondent No.5 was not in
accordance with the prescribed procedure. Pursuant to said complaint
dated 28/08/2008, the District Supply Officer had directed the concerned
authority to hold an enquiry into the matter. After holding such enquiry, a
'show cause notice' came to be issued to respondent No.5 on 06/10/2008.
Thereafter, on 28/11/2008, the District Supply Officer suspended the
authorisation issued in favour of respondent No.5. This order passed by
the District Supply Officer came to be modified by the Deputy
Commissioner (Supplies) on 05/02/2009. The earlier order dated
28/11/2008 was set aside and a fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed with a
view to give one opportunity to respondent No.5.
3 wp.5892.15.jud
04] According to the petitioner, in the year 2013, certain
complaints were made to the authorities on the basis of which the District
Supply Officer acting on the report of Tahsildar issued a 'show cause notice'
to respondent No.5 and thereafter cancelled the authorisation issued in
favour of said respondent. This order was maintained by the Deputy
Commissioner (Supplies) by dismissing the appeal preferred by respondent
No.5. These orders were, however, set aside by the Hon'ble Minister in
revision proceedings and by imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/-, an opportunity
to run the fair price shop came to be granted. This order is under challenge
in the present writ petition.
05] Shri A.S. Kilor, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that considering the earlier proceedings, the Hon'ble Minister
was not justified in granting an opportunity to respondent No.5 to run the
fair price shop. It was submitted that the earlier proceedings wherein fine
was imposed on the respondent No.5 were never placed before the
authorities when the present proceedings were initiated. As a result, this
aspect of the matter that one chance to run the fair price shop was already
given to respondent No.5 could not be appreciated. It was submitted that
the petitioner was one of the complainants when the complaint dated
28/08/2008 was made. The petitioner had also filed an application for
intervention in the subsequent proceedings filed before the Deputy
4 wp.5892.15.jud
Commissioner (Supplies). It is, therefore, submitted that in these facts, the
order passed by the Hon'ble Minister deserves to be set aside.
06] Shri M.P. Kariya, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5
supported the impugned order. According to him, it was only on account
of political rivalry that complaints were being made against the respondent
No.5. He submitted that no irregularities were committed by the
respondent No.5 and the earlier proceedings had been decided by holding
elections amongst the villagers. He challenged the locus of the petitioner
on the ground that he was not a party in the proceedings before the
authorities. It was, however, not disputed that at an earlier point of time,
fine of Rs.1,000/- had been imposed on respondent No.5 and an
opportunity for running the fair price shop came to be granted. It was,
therefore, submitted that there was no reason to interfere in the impugned
order.
07] Shri K.L Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. He, however, stated that perusal of the
impugned order did not indicate any reference being made to the earlier
proceedings.
5 wp.5892.15.jud
08] I have heard the respective Counsel for the parties and
perused the documents on record. As regards the locus of the petitioner, it
can be seen that the petitioner was a complainant, which complaint was
filed on 28/08/2008. Similarly, the petitioner had also filed an application
for intervention in the appeal filed by respondent No.5 in the present round
of litigation. This application dated 28/01/2014 does not appear to have
been adjudicated upon. The petitioner is also a complainant resulting into
initiation of fresh proceedings against the respondent No.5. In this
backdrop, therefore, it has to be held that the petitioner has sufficient locus
to maintain the present writ petition.
09] It is not in dispute that at an earlier point of time, the Deputy
Commissioner (Supplies) had passed an order on 05/02/2009 thereby
restoring the authorisation in favour of respondent No.5 by imposing a fine
of Rs.1,000/-. It was also observed that one opportunity for doing business
was being granted to respondent No.5. Perusal of orders passed by the
District Supply Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Supplies) as well as the
Hon'ble Minister do not indicate that the earlier proceedings and the orders
passed therein were brought to their notice. In the impugned order, it has
been observed that considering the facts of the case, one opportunity
deserves to be granted to respondent No.5 to conduct business. Absence of
relevant material in the form of the earlier order passed by the Deputy
6 wp.5892.15.jud
Commissioner (Supplies), dated 05/02/2009, by which one chance was
given to respondent No.5 has therefore affected the decision making
process of the Authorities. The earlier adjudication was required to be
taken into consideration before deciding the present proceedings. Absence
of consideration of this aspect, therefore, has vitiated the exercise of
discretion by the Hon'ble Minister. In absence of consideration of this
relevant aspect, it is found that the revision application filed by respondent
No.5 deserves to be reconsidered afresh. What weightage has to be given
to the said order dated 05/02/2009 is a factor to be considered in the
revision application on its own merits.
10] In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed :
i. The order dated 03/08/2015 passed by the respondent No.2 is
quashed and set aside. The revision application filed by the
respondent No.5 is restored for being decided afresh and in
the light of observations made in this order. It would be open
for the petitioner to participate in the said proceedings before
the respondent No.2, if so advised.
ii. The parties shall appear before the respondent No.2 on 4 th of
July, 2016. The proceedings shall be decided within a period
7 wp.5892.15.jud
of three months from the said date. Till the said proceedings
are decided, respondent No.5 shall continue to operate the fair
price shop. However, this arrangement is without prejudice to
the rights of the parties.
iii. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE
*sdw
