Bombay High Court
Satish Santram Chavan And Another vs The Deputy Commissioner ... on 27 June, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-6693.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6693 OF 2016
01 Satish s/o Santram Chavan,
age 48 years, occup. Agri. and
Vigilance Committee Member of
village Jategaon, R/o Jategaon,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed`
02 Sham s/o Laxman Chavan,
Age 35 years, occup. Agril.,
R/o Jategaon, Tq. Georai,
Dist. Beed .. Petitioners
versus
01 The Deputy Commissioner (Supply),
Aurangabad
02 The District Supply Officer,
Beed
03 The Tahsildar, Gevrai,
Tq. Gevrai, Dist. Beed
04 Nilawati w/o Maroti Chavan,
Age 60 years, occup. Business,
R/o Jategaon, Tq. Gevrai,
Dist. Beed .. Respondents
-----
Mr. Pravin S. Dighe, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. S. K. Tambe, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for respondents no. 1 to 3
Mr. K. R. Doke, Advocate for respondent no. 4 - caveator
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 27th June, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned
counsel for parties by consent finally.
2 WP-6693.16.doc
2. Petitioners are before this court, purportedly aggrieved by
endorsement appearing in roznama dated 21-06-2016 in revision
bearing no. 2016/SB/RP/384 passed by respondent no.1 simply
recording that stay is vacated and posting the matter
on 01-08-2016.
3. Briefly stated, respondent no. 4's licence was suspended
under order passed in 2006 by the
ig district supply officer -
respondent no. 2. Subsequently, ten years down, the same
came to be restored on certain conditions. Restoration had been
the subject-matter of challenge in revision filed at the instance
of present petitioners. Along with revision application, it
appears, by way of interim relief, stay of order passed by
respondent no. 2 restoring licence of respondent no. 4, had also
been sought by filing an application to that effect. By making
certain observations, respondent no.1-deputy commissioner
(supply), Aurangabad had stayed effect of order dated
07-04-2016 passed by respondent no. 2 - district supply officer
restoring licence of respondent no. 4 and the matter accordingly
had been kept on 21-06-2016
4. It is being contended on behalf of respondent no. 4 that on
21-06-2016, hearing had taken place on stay application before
3 WP-6693.16.doc
respondent no.1-deputy commissioner (supply). He further
contends that the order purportedly impugned in this writ
petition can be subjected to further revision before the State
government having regard to clause 24 of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners draws attention of this
court to the way in which impugned order appears to have been
recorded and adjourning the proceedings in revision.
6. He submits that the impugned order is without application
of mind and absolutely without reasons supporting the same.
Impugned order supports and lends credence to submission of
the petitioners and that alternate remedy may not be
efficacious to to petitioners, having regard to facts,
circumstances and record.
7. Having regard to nature of the order impugned, it would
be expedient to direct respondent no. 1- deputy commissioner
(supply) to decide on the stay application filed along with
revision application after hearing parties, afresh.
8. As such, impugned endorsement/order as depicted on the
proceeding sheet to the extent of vacating relief granted on
13-05-2016 stands quashed and set aside and stay order as had
4 WP-6693.16.doc
been passed before stands restored. Application for stay to be
decided after hearing parties. Accordingly, parties would
address themselves on the next date before respondent no.1-
deputy commissioner (supply).
9. Writ petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute
accordingly.
ig SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,
JUDGE
pnd
