Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Pundlikrao Changole vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 27 March, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp1368.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1368 OF 2015
Vijay s/o Pundlikrao Changole,
aged about 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Chinchkhed, Tah. & Distt. Amravati...... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1] State of Maharashtra,
through Hon'ble Minister,
Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer
Protection Department, Mantralaya
Extension, Mumbai-32.
2] Deputy Commissioner (Supply),
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3] District Supply Officer, Amravati,
Tah. And Distt. Amravati.
4] Moreshwar s/o Shankarrao Changole,
aged about major, R/o. Chinchkhed,
Tah. And Distt. Amravati...... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.R.Agrawal, counsel for Petitioners.
Shri K.R.Lule, counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri P.S.Patil, counsel for Respondent No.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
th
DATE : 27 MARCH, 2017 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the parties.
2 wp1368.15.odt
2] The District Supply Officer, Amravati, by his
order dated 24.09.2013 cancelled the fair price authorization
on the ground of illegalities found to have been committed by
the respondent No.4. In appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner (Supply), Amravati Division, this order was
maintained on 17.10.2014. In revision, the Minister, Food
and Civil Supplies Department has set aside the order
passed by the authorities below on 04.03.2015 and a fine of
Rs.10,000/- has been imposed. The matter is remanded
back for fresh enquiry.
2] From 01.05.2013 till the end of July 2013, the
food grains were received and sold in fair price shop by the
respondent No.4. The accounts of such sale was not
maintained and this was one of the charges levelled against
the respondent No.4. A show cause notice was issued on
05.09.2013, to which the reply was submitted on 24.09.2013.
It was the specific stand of the respondent No.4 that the
account was maintained. However, during the course of
hearing, it was discovered that such account was not
maintained and the explanation was furnished that due to
3 wp1368.15.odt
accident, right hand of the petitioner was fractured and
therefore, the account could not be maintained for this
period.
3] Obviously, when the respondent No. 4 could sale
the food grains, he could have maintained the account also,
either by himself or through someone else. The stand taken
that the accounts were maintained is found to be false and
on this ground, the authorization was cancelled.
4] In the impugned order, the Minister has
observed that the statements were recorded in absence of
respondent No.4 by the Inspector and the order was passed
on the same day, when the explanation was furnished on
24.09.2013. The aforesaid factual aspects have not been
disputed. The Minister has committed an error in setting
aside the orders passed by the authorities below. The order
impugned cannot, therefore, be sustained and it will have to
be quashed and set aside.
5] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Minister in Revision
4 wp1368.15.odt
No. VAA-1315/Case No.6/N.P. 23 is hereby quashed and set
aside and the order passed by the authorities below are
restored. No order as to costs.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
