The Grampanchayat, Borgaon ... vs The Honable Minister, Food, Civil ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3213 Bom

                                                                       wp6051-6386.15
                                           1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                              
                              NAGPUR.

                     WRIT    PETITION     NO.    6051    OF     2015




                                                     
                                        WITH
                      WRIT   PETITION    NO.  6386  OF   2015

    Vasanta Ashruji Landkar,




                                                    
    aged 42 yrs. At Borgaon,
    Post Amkheda, Tah.Malegaon
    Distt. Washim.                                                 PETITIONER.




                                         
                                         VERSUS


     
                             
    1] The Hon'ble Minister,
                            
    Food, Civil Supplies and 
    Consumer Protection Deptt.
    Mantralaya Mumbai. 

    2] The Deputy Commissioner 
      


    (Supply) Amravati Division
    Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
   



    3] The District Supply Officer
    Washim, Distt. Washim. 





    4] Dyanba Pundlik Landkar,
    aged Adult, R/o at Borgaon,
    Tah. Malegaon, Distt.Washim. 

    5] Tahsildar, Malegaon,
    Distt. Washim.                                                 RESPONDENTS.

Shri H. R. Gadhia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri S. B. Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3 &

5. Shri V. K. Paliwal, Advocate for the respondent no. 4.

                              





                                                                                  wp6051-6386.15


                         WRIT   PETITION  NO.   6386   OF    2015




                                                                                        
    1] Grampanchayat Borgaon,




                                                                
    through Sarpanch, R/o Borgaon
    Tah. Malegaon, Distt. Washim. 

    2] Grampanchayat Borgaon,




                                                               
    through its Secretary, R/o 
    Borgaon, Tah. Malegaon, Distt.
    Washim.                                                                  PETITIONERS. 

                                              VERSUS




                                                
    1] The Hon'ble Minister,  
    Food, Civil Supplies and 
    Consumer Protection Deptt.
    Mantralaya Mumbai. 
                             
    2] The Deputy Commissioner 
    (Supply) Amravati Division
    Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
      


    3] The District Supply Officer
    Washim, Distt. Washim. 
   



    4] Dyanba Pundlik Landkar,
    aged Adult, R/o at Borgaon,
    Tah. Malegaon, Distt.Washim. 





    5] Tahsildar, Malegaon,
    Distt. Washim.                                                           RESPONDENTS.

Shri A. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri S. B. Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3 &

5. Shri V. K. Paliwal, Advocate for the respondent no. 4.

                              CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                               
                                      Dated    :   JUNE  24, 2016.

    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

Since both these writ petitions take exception to the order dated

wp6051-6386.15

03.10.2015 passed by the State Government in proceedings under the

Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order,

1975 (for short, the said Order). For sake of convenience the facts in Writ

Petition No. 6051 of 2015 are being referred to.

2] The respondent no.4 was issued an authorisation for running a

Fair Price Shop at Mouza Borgaon. On account of complaints made with

regard to the manner of running the fair price shop, the District Supply

Officer passed an order dated 28.05.2013 suspending the authorisation

issued in favour of respondent no.4 pending enquiry. Thereafter the Supply

Inspector after recording the statements of various card holders and after

calling upon the respondent no.4 to furnish relevant records submitted his

report dated 13.09.2013. In the said report it was stated that the respondent

no.4 was responsible for certain irregularities and on that count recovery of

certain amounts was proposed. Thereafter the District Supply Officer by

order dated 31.10.2013 passed an order cancelling the authorisation and

directing recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,72,100/-. The Deputy

Commissioner (Supply) maintained the aforesaid order. The respondent no.

4 filed a revision application before the State Government and by the order

dated 03.10.2015, the Hon'ble Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and

Consumer Protection Department, set aside the orders of the District Supply

Officer and Deputy Commissioner (Supply). Instead a fine of Rs. 5000/- was

imposed and the authorisation in favour of respondent no.4 was restored. A

further direction was issued to again record the statements of card holders

wp6051-6386.15

and then pass further orders. This order is the subject matter of the

challenge in both the writ petitions.

3] Shri H. R. Gadhia, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ

Petition No. 6051 of 2015 submitted that the Hon'ble Minister was not

justified in giving go by to the report of the Inspector dated 13.09.2013.

According to him this report was prepared after giving notice to the

respondent no.4 and after recording statements of the card holders. He

submitted that without this report being held to be either incorrect or

insufficient, the orders passed on the basis of said report have been set aside.

It was further submitted that a prima facie finding was recorded in the

impugned order about the guilt of the respondent no.4. Further the direction

to recover the amount of Rs. 5,72,100/- has been set aside without assigning

any reasons. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order was liable to

be set aside.

4] Shri A. R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners in

Writ petition No. 6386 of 2015 submitted that after the appeal filed by the

respondent no. 4 was dismissed, a fresh proclamation was issued and the fair

price shop in issue was allotted to the petitioner. However when the revision

application was decided by the State Government the present petitioner was

not heard. He relied upon the provisions of Section 12(2)(e) of the National

Food Security Act, 2013 and submitted that the grant of authorisation in

favour of the local self body was justified.

6] Shri V. K. Paliwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.4

wp6051-6386.15

supported the impugned order. According to him the petitioner in Writ

Petition No. 6051 of 2015 had no locus to challenge the impugned order. He

submitted that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner as a fresh enquiry

had been ordered by the Hon'ble Minister while restoring the authorisation.

He submitted that only on account of political rivalary and by not considering

the entire record, the report had been submitted by the Supply Inspector. He

then submitted that in so far as the subsequent allotment is concerned, the

proclamation itself was illegal as the present proceedings were pending. He,

therefore, submitted that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned

order.

Shri S. B. Ahirkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

respondent nos. 1 to 3 relied upon the affidavit on record and also supported

the impugned order.

7] I have heard respective counsel for the parties and I have given

due consideration to their respective submissions. The petitioner in Writ

Petition No. 6051 of 2015 is one of the complainants in the matter. He was

arrayed as non-applicant no.3 in the proceedings before the State

Government. He thus has locus to challenge the order dated 03.10.2015.

The records indicate that pursuant to the directions issued by the

District Supply Officer, the Supply Inspector held an enquiry and recorded

statements of various card holders. On 10.09.2013 about 25 card holders

were called upon for recording their say. About thirteen card holders

recorded their statements while two card holders gave written statements.

wp6051-6386.15

There is a further reference that the records in question were demanded from

the respondent no.4 by giving a letter dated 09.07.2013 and thereafter the

respondent no.4 on 20.07.2013 made a complaint with regard to loss of this

record. The District Supply Officer after considering this report cancelled the

authorisation in favour of the respondent no.4. This order was maintained by

the Deputy Commissioner (Supplies). The Hon'ble Minister while

considering the revision application has not recorded any finding that this

report dated 13.09.2013 was prepared in a manner contrary to law. No

reasons are assigned for not accepting said report. It has merely been

observed that a fresh consideration was desirable. Considering the fact that

this report dated 13.09.2013 was submitted after grant of opportunity to the

respondent no.4, the Hon'ble Minister ought to have recorded a finding that

this report was not in accordance with law if the same was not to be relied

upon. Similarly there is no finding recorded that the amount of Rs.

5,72,100/- which was directed to be recovered from the respondent no. 4

was an incorrect figure. Thus in effect without recording any finding in that

regard, the orders passed by the District Supply Officer and by the Deputy

Commissioner (Supplies) have been set aside. The impugned order does not

indicate consideration of the entire material on record while deciding the

revision application.

8] In so far as the subsequent allotment of the fair price shop to the

petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6386 of 2015 is concerned, the said allotment

is dependent on the outcome of the earlier proceedings. Hence at this stage

wp6051-6386.15

it is not necessary to record any finding in that regard.

9] In view of aforesaid the following order is passed:

1] The order dated 03.10.2015 passed by the State Government

is set aside. The revision application preferred by the respondent no.4 is

restored for being decided afresh considering the entire material on record.

2] The parties shall appear before the respondent no.1 on

11.07.2016 and the revision application shall be decided within a period of

three months from said date.

3] The revision application shall be decided on its own merits and

in accordance with law. Till the said revision application is decided the fair

price shop which is being run by Grampanchayat Borgaon is permitted to be

so run. However, this arrangement is without prejudice to the rights of the

parties and subject to final outcome of the revision application.

Grampanchayat Borgaon is at liberty to participate in the aforesaid

proceedings.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.

JUDGE

svk