Balaji Trimbakrao Yelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10851 Bom

                                    {1}                 WP 11545 OF 2016


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 905 WRIT PETITION NO.11545 OF 2016

 .        Balaji S/o Trimbakrao Yelkar
          Age: 55 years, Occu.: Agril.,
          R/o. Tupdi, Tq.Nilanga,
          District : Latur.                             ..Petitioner

                                 VERSUS
 1.       The State of Maharashtra

 2.       The Hon'ble Minister,
          Food, Civil Supply and Consumer
          Protection Department, Mantralaya,
          Mumbai - 32.

 3.       The Deputy Commissioner,
          Civil Supply, Aurangabad.

 4.        The District Supply Ofcer, Latur.

 5.       Yadav S/o. Dattu Gore
          Age: 50 years, Occu.: Agril.,
          R/o. Tupdi, Tq.Nilanga,
          District : Latur.                             ..Respondents
                                    ...
     Advocate for Petitioner : Smt.M.A.Kulkarni h/f. Shri A.M. Kulkarni
         AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4-State : Shri A.B.Chate
         Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Smt. A.S.Jadhav h/f.
                                     Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar
                                    ...

                               CORAM :     M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.

                               DATE:      11th August, 2021
 ORAL JUDGMENT :-


 1.       Heard.



 2.       Smt.M.A.Kulkarni,    learned    counsel      holding        for     Shri




::: Uploaded on - 27/08/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2021 10:07:47 :::
                                            {2}                WP 11545 OF 2016


 A.M.Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner states that despite

 making an application for supply of copies to the Ofce of the

 Hon'ble Minister (Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection

 Department), copies were not supplied to the petitioner. Without

 supplying the copies to the petitioner, the Hon'ble Minister

 decided revision by order dated 6th October, 2016. Smt.Kulkarni,

 learned counsel submitted that because of failure to supply

 copies, petitioner could not make his submissions efectively. He

 has been denied the right of fair trial. She states that, therefore,

 the matter needs to be remitted to the Hon'ble Minister for fresh

 hearing.



 3.       To    buttress        her   submissions,   she    placed       on      record

 photocopy of the application dated 27 th September 2016.                           She

 has already placed on record true copy of this application

 alongwith the petition at Exhibit-'D' collectively. At the time of

 admission of the petition, record was called specifcally for

 ascertaining whether such type of application was tendered. The

 record does show that this application was fled before the

 Hon'ble Minister.             Photocopy produced by the petitioner shows

 that the petitioner had tendered personally the copy of the

 application to the Private Secretary of Hon'ble Minister on 27 th

 September, 2016.




::: Uploaded on - 27/08/2021                         ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2021 10:07:47 :::
                                          {3}                WP 11545 OF 2016


 4.       Shri A.B.Chate, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4

 submitted with vehemence that this copy of application was

 subsequently tendered just to get favourable relief. According to

 him, the Ofce endorsement does not appear on this application.

 Therefore, he submits that this application was submitted after

 the decision of the matter.



 5.       Respondent No.5 has fled afdavit-in-reply.                       Smt.A.S.

 Jadhav, learned counsel appears for respondent No.5.                             She

 adopted        the     arguments   of    Shri   Chate,     learned       AGP      for

 respondent Nos.1 to 4.



 6.       The submissions of the learned AGP for respondent Nos.1

 to 4       cannot be accepted.          The photocopy produced by the

 petitioner is his ofce copy.                  On this copy, there is an

 acknowledgment given by Private Secretary to the Hon'ble

 Minister.        Acknowledgment cannot be made on the original

 application fled in the Ofce of the Hon'ble Minister. In this view

 of the matter, there is substance in the contention of the

 petitioner that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of

 hearing. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter

 to the Hon'ble Minister for fresh hearing. Hence, the order:




::: Uploaded on - 27/08/2021                       ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2021 10:07:47 :::
                                      {4}               WP 11545 OF 2016


                                   ORDER

i) Writ Petition is allowed.

ii) Matter is remitted to the Hon'ble Minister for deciding the revision afresh.

iii) The Hon'ble Minister shall supply the copies of the documents mention of which is made in the communication dated 27th September, 2016.

iv) Since the matter is of the year 2015, the Hon'ble Minister shall decide the matter within six months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court.

v) Parties to appear before the Hon'ble Minister on 15 th September, 2021.

vi) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Ofce of the Hon'ble Minister.

vii) Writ petition is disposed of.

( M.G.SEWLIKAR ) JUDGE SPT