Bombay High Court
Sanjay Rameshwar Ganvir And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr.Secty. ... on 10 July, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
wp.2698.02.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2698 OF 2002
01] Sanjay s/o Rameshwar Ganvir,
Aged about 25 years, Occu : Labour,
R/o Ratnara, Tah. & Dist. Gondia.
02] Dhanraj s/o Sukhlal Upwanshi,
Aged about 25 years, Occu : Farmer,
R/o Ratnara, Tah. & Dist. Gondia. .... Petitioners
-- Versus -
01] The State of Maharashtra,
through, Secretary/Minister,
Food & Civil Supply,
Mantralaya, Mumbai : 32
02] Anand Kumar Dindayal Borkar,
Aged adult, Occu :Fair Price Shopkeeper,
at Ratnara,
R/o Ratnara, Tah. & Dist. Gondia (M.S.).
03] Deputy Commissioner Supply,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur (M.S.)
04] District Supply Officer,
Gondia, Tah. & Dist. Gondia (M.S.). .... Respondents
Shri A.M. Balpande, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : JULY 10, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:17:14 :::
wp.2698.02.jud 2
This petition takes an exception to the order dated
13/06/2002 passed by respondent no.1 partly allowing revision
application preferred by respondent no.2 and setting aside the
order dated 10/12/2001 passed by the District Supply Officer
rejecting fair price shop licence of respondent no.2.
02] Few facts relevant for the decision of this writ petition
may be stated as under:
i. Petitioners are ration card holders. Respondent no.2
was running a ration shop at village Ratnara in Tahsil
and District Gondia. Respondent no.2 shifted to Delhi
as his wife was serving there. The said shop was then
run by his brother Vijay Borkar.
ii. After Vijay Borkar started running the shop, many
complaints were received from the card holders.
Tahsildar made enquiry and submitted report to
District Supply Officer. During enquiry, statement of
villagers and card holders were recorded. On going
through the enquiry report, District Supply Officer vide
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:17:14 :::
wp.2698.02.jud 3
order dated 10/12/2001 suspended the fair price shop
licence allotted to respondent no.2.
iii. Respondent no.2 preferred revision before Deputy
Commissioner (Supply), Nagpur. Said revision was
dismissed by order dated 06/02/2002 and the Deputy
Commissioner (Supply), Nagpur confirmed the order
of District Supply Officer.
iv. Being aggrieved, respondent no.2 preferred an appeal
before respondent no.1. By the impugned order
dated 13/06/2002, respondent no.1 interfered with
the concurrent findings recorded by the lower
authorities and restored the fair price shop licence to
respondent no.2 on payment of penalty. It is this
order which is the subject matter of present petition.
03] With the assistance of learned Assistant Government
Pleader, this Court has gone through the orders passed by the
District Supply Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nagpur
and respondent no.1. It can be seen from the orders passed by
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:17:14 :::
wp.2698.02.jud 4
respondent nos.3 & 4 that serious irregularities were noticed at
the time of inspection. The report clearly indicates that
grievance of card holders had substance as statements of
villagers and card holders recorded during enquiry supported the
allegations in complaints. Based on the material collected during
enquiry and having found that respondent no.2 indulged into
various unauthorized activities, District Supply Officer suspended
the fair price shop licence granted to respondent no.2. The order
was thus confirmed by the Revisional Authority/respondent no.3.
04] Needless to state that when concurrent findings were
recorded by respondent nos.3 & 4, respondent no.1 should have
been slow in interfering with the concurrent findings. From the
order passed by respondent no.1, it can be seen that no
convincing reasons have been assigned to interfere with the
orders passed by respondent nos.3 & 4.
05] Taking into consideration allegations made in
complaints, material collected during enquiry and the reasons
recorded by respondent nos.3 & 4 in their orders, this Court is of
the view that respondent no.1 has committed error of law by
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:17:14 :::
wp.2698.02.jud 5
interfering with the concurrent findings without recording proper
reasons. Hence, this Court is inclined to invoke an extraordinary
jurisdiction and proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
I. Writ Petition No.2698/2002 is partly allowed.
II. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a)
and (d).
III. No costs.
*sdw (Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
