Sau. Lalita Muralidhar Umale And ... vs Honble Minister, Food, Civil ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1109 Bom

Judgment                         1                      WP6674.19.odt



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

              WRIT PETITION NO.6674 OF 2019

PETITIONERS      :   1] Sau. Lalita Murlidhar Umale,
                        Age 42 years, By Occu. Agriculturist,
                        R/o Haram, Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.

                     2] Ramesh Rajaram Satpute,
                        Age 66 years, By Occu. Agriculturist,
                        R/o Haram, Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.

                     3] Kishor Gokulsingh Bodratiye,
                        Aged 42 years, By occu. : Agriculturist,
                        R/o Haram, Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.

                     4] Mangesh Prakashrao Ingale,
                        Aged 34 years, By occu. : Agriculturist,
                        R/o Haram, Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.

                     5] Manohar Haribhau Kakade,
                        Aged 60 years, By occu. : Agriculturist,
                        R/o Haram, Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.

                        // VERSUS //

RESPONDENTS      : 1] Hon'ble Minister,
                      Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection,
                      Sate of Maharashtra, Mantralaya,
                      Mumbai.

                     2] The Deputy Commissioner (Supply),
                        Amravati Division, Amravati.

                     3] The District Supply Officer,
                        Amravati, Tq. And Dist. Amravati.

                     4] Rajkanya Tulsidas Burnase,
                        Aged 45 years, Occu. Household,
                        R/o Haram, Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.
   Judgment                               2                       WP6674.19.odt


____________________________________________________________________

             Shri N. A. Gawande, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Shri I. J. Damle, A. G. P. for respondent no.1 to 3
             Shri D.S. Khushlani, Advocate for the respondent no..4
________________________________________________________________________________



                            CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J .
                            DATED : JANUARY 18, 2021.


 ORAL JUDGMENT



  1.          RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

  consent of the learned counsel for the parties.



  2.          Shri N.A. Gawande, learned counsel is representing the

  petitioners, Shri Indranil J. Damle, learned Assistant Government

  Pleader is representing respondent nos.1 to 3, whereas respondent

  no.4 is represented by Shri D.S. Kushlani, learned counsel.



  3.          Facts

giving rise to the present writ petition can be

summarized as under :

Respondent no.4 was running a fair price shop as per the

authorization issued to her by the authorities at village Haram, Tq.

Achalpur, Dist. Amravati. Petitioner no.1 is the Sarpanch of village Judgment 3 WP6674.19.odt

Haram, whereas petitioner nos.2 to 5 are the ration card holders,

whose cards were attached to the fair price shop of respondent no.4.

Thus, petitioner nos.2 to 5 are the beneficiaries and they are the

recipients of the food-grains from the government quota.

4. On 08.02.2019, villagers in general and 28 in particular,

submitted an application to the petitioner no.1 under their signature.

By the said, it was brought to the notice of petitioner no.1 that though

authorization to run fair price shop is given to respondent no.4, she is

not running the shop and in fact, her son Ashish runs the said shop.

Further, it was brought to the notice of petitioner no.1 - Sarpanch that

said Ashish manipulates the quota of the government grains by

obtaining thumb impression of the villagers/card holders to show that

the grains are distributed, however in fact the grains are not

distributed and/or supplied to them.

5. Similarly, on 13.02.2019, another complaint was given to

petitioner no.1. In this complaint, it was also brought to the notice of

petitioner no.1- Sarpanch that the grains meant for sell through fair

price shop are sold in open market. Thus, a serious charge of black

marketing was also levelled. Further, it was also pointed out that the Judgment 4 WP6674.19.odt

receipts are not issued to the card holders; the son of respondent no.4

extend threats and they were also not given proper treatment.

6. As per the petitioner's case, petitioner no.1 Sarpanch

immediately brought to the notice of Tahsildar all these facts which are

mentioned by the villagers. On 13.02.2019, the Inspection Officer Shri

S.S. Deshmukh visited village Haram. During his visit, it was found by

the Inspection Officer that 35 bags of rice weighing 50 Kgs each,

allotted to the shop of respondent no.4, were not found in her fair

price shop, but those were found stocked in the house of one Sudhakar

Tulshiramji Bobde. Accordingly, those were seized.

7. On 20.02.2019, the Tahsildar, Achalpur lodged a complaint

with Police Station, Samraspura, Achalpur. The complaint given by the

Tahsildar, is at Annexure-C (page 23) of compilation of this writ

petition. In the said complaint, it was stated by the Tahsildar that 35

bags of rice,which were allotted for distribution through fair price shop

of respondent no.4, were found to be stocked illegally in the house of

one Shri Subhakar Bobde and when the statement was recorded of

Shalini Bobde, the wife of Sudhakar Bobde, she disclosed that when

the truck came, the truck driver unloaded the food grains in her house Judgment 5 WP6674.19.odt

on the direction given by the son of respondent no.4. The Police

Station Officer registered a crime against respondent no.4, her son

Ashish and Sudhakar Bobde, in whose house the government property

was found illegally stocked, vide Crime No. 27/2019 for the offence

punishable under Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,

1955. After completion of the entire investigation, final report under

Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed against three

accused. It is informed to the Court that the trial is awaiting its result

and is pending before the competent criminal Court.

8. Be that as it may. The Inspection Officer found following

irregularities when he inspected the fair price shop of respondent

no.4 :-

1- jsdkWMZ v|;kor dsysyk ukgh-

2- jks[k ikorh nsr ukgh-

3- nqdkukr fcy cqd miyC/k ukgh-

4- jkLrHkko nqdku Lor% pkyfor ukgh- 5- LVkWd jft"Vj o fodzh jft"Vj v|;kor ukgh- 6- /kkU;kps uequs ikjn'kZd ckVyhe/;s Bso.;kr vkysys ukgh-

7- n'kZuh Hkkxkoj dks.kR;kgh izdkjps Qyd ykoysys ukgh-

8- f'k/kkif=dk/kkjdkauk pkaxyh okx.kqd nsr ukgh- 9- /kkU;kps iSls tkLr ?ksrkr o /kkU; deh nsrkr- 10- ikWl e'khuoj vaxBs ?ksrkr i.k /kkU; nsr ukgh- 11- efg.;kr dsoG pkj rs ikp fnol nqdku m?kMrkr o /kkU; okVikph noaMh lq/nk nsr ukgh-

Judgment 6 WP6674.19.odt

12- nqdkukr miyC/k /kkU; lkB;kph ekstuh dsyh vlrk xgq 58-00 fDoa-] rkanqG 33-00 fDoa-] lk[kj 42 fdyks] rqjMkG 2-75 fDoa- vk<Gqu vkyk- jsdkWMZ lknj u dsY;keqGs rikl.kh djrk vkyh ukgh-

13- ofj"B dk;kZy;kph dks.krhgh ijokuxh u ?ksrk jkLrHkko nqdkukrhy rkanqGkps 35 dV~Vs nql&;kP;k ?kjkr csdk;nsf'kji.ks nMoqu Bsoys- dkMZ/kkjdkauk /kkU; okVi u djrk lnj /kkU;kph vQjkrQj dsyh vkgs o R;kckcr nqdkunkjkfo:/n FIR nk[ky dj.;kr vkyk-

9. The Tahsildar, Achalpur gave report on 18.02.2019 and

thereafter the proceedings were initiated on the file of respondent no.3

- District Supply Officer and the Licensing Authority, Amravati vide

Case No. [email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@2019- Accordingly, on

05.04.2019, a show cause notice was given to the respondent no.4 and

respondent no.4 was directed to attend the office on 15.04.2019 along

with the entire record. She was also directed to submit written reply.

Accordingly,respondent no.4 appeared and filed her written statement.

Respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer, after hearing respondent

no.4 and after considering her written statement and after examining

the record, found that respondent no.4 did not maintain the record

properly. It was also found that respondent no.4 was not issuing

receipts to the card holders and was also not keeping bill books. As

such, the District Supply Officer drawn inference that respondent no.4 Judgment 7 WP6674.19.odt

has done all this just to misappropriate the government quota of the

grains and I see no reason to interfere with such conclusion drawn by

the District Supply Officer.

Respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer also found that

though it was obligatory on the part of respondent no.4 to run the shop

personally, it was found that she was not running the shop, but in her

place her son was running the shop.

10. After examining the record, the District Supply Officer

found that the irregularities which were found in the inspection were

found to be correct and in consonance with the facts as recorded while

conducting inspection by the authority. The District Supply Officer,

therefore, vide order dated 30.04.2019 found that the irregularities

committed by respondent no.4, which were noticed in the inspection

report dated 18.02.2019 by the Tahsildar were found to be very serious

and therefore, he reached to the conclusion that respondent no.4 has

committed breach of conditions and therefore, the authorization issued

in favour of respondent no.4 was cancelled and the deposit was

forfeited.

Judgment 8 WP6674.19.odt

11. Respondent no.4 thereafter filed a revision under Section

24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of

Distribution) Order, 1975 before respondent no.2 - Deputy

Commissioner (Supply), Amravati Division, Amravati. The said was

registered as case no. lh,l,l&[email protected]@2018&19- Respondent

no.2 - Commissioner gave hearing to respondent no.4 and on her

behalf her Advocate made submissions. The respondent no.2, after

hearing the learned counsel for respondent no.4 and after examining

the record found that :-

"1- vfiykFkhZ ;kaP;k jkLr Hkko nqdkukph rdzkjhps vuq"kaxkus pkSd'kh fujh{k.k vf/kdkjh] vpyiqj ;kaP;k ekQZr d:u vgoky ftYgk iqjoBk vf/kdkjh] vejkorh ;kapsdMs lknj dsyk- ftYgk iqjoBk vf/kdkjh] vejkorh ;kauh vfiykfFkZ ;kaP;koj nks"kkjksi fu/kkZfjr d:u fn-30-04-2019 vUo;s jkLr Hkko nqdkukps izkf/kdkj i= jn~n dj.;kr vkys gksrs-

2- rikl.kh vf/kdkjh ;kauh uksanfoysY;k c;kuke/;s nqdkunkj gs dkMZ /kkjdklkscr vjsjkohph Hkk"kk okijrkr- ikorh nsr ukgh] jkLr Hkko nqdku Lor% pkyohr ukgh] /kkU;kps iSls tkLr ?ksrkr o /kkU; deh nsrkr] ikWl e'khuoj vaxBs ?ksrkr i.k /kkU; nsr ukgh] efgU;kr dsoG pkj rs ikp fnol nqdku m?kMrkr o /kkU; okVikph noaMh lqn~/kk nsr ukgh vls ueqn dsys vkgs-

3- rikl.kh vf/kdkjh ;kauh rikl.kh vfHkys[kklkscr tksMysys c;kukr lqn~/kk vfiykFkhZ fo:) c&;kp rdzkjh vlY;kps fnlqu ;sr vkgs-

4- jkLr Hkko nqdkunkl ikWl e'khu n~okjs /kkU; okVi dj.;kl VkGkVkG djhr vlY;kps Li"V gksrs- rlsp dkMZ/kkjdkP;k c;kukuqlkj /kkU;kpk vigkj dsY;kps fl) gksrs-"

Judgment 9 WP6674.19.odt

Thereafter, respondent no.2 - Deputy Commissioner recorded a finding

that respondent no.4 was found to be guilty of committing very serious

lapses and the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.4 was

unacceptable and therefore, the said authority dismissed the revision

filed on behalf of respondent no.4.

12. Being aggrieved by the said, respondent no.4 approached

respondent no.1 - Hon'ble Minister by filing proceeding vide case No.

oSvv&[email protected]@ek-iq-23- The Hon'ble Minister, vide order dated

09.09.2019 partly allowed the said revision proceeding by which the

order passed by respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer dated

30.04.2019 so also the order passed by respondent no.2 - Deputy

Commissioner on 11.07.2019 confirming the order passed by

respondent no.3, were quashed and set side. However, insofar as

forfeiture of deposit amount is concerned, the same was confirmed and

in addition to that fresh deposit and fine amount was directed to be

deposited by respondent no.4 and on such deposit, the authorization

was directed to be issued/renewed. Against this, the present writ

petition is filed.

Judgment 10 WP6674.19.odt

13. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioners, purposely respondent no.4 did not join the petitioner no.1

Sarpanch as party to the proceeding before respondent no.2 - Deputy

Commissioner and before respondent no.1 - Hon'ble Minister. He

submitted that the entire proceedings were initiated and/or started on

the complaint lodged by the Sarpanch. Therefore, it was obligatory on

the part of respondent no.4 and also on the part of respondent no.1 -

Hon'ble Minister to join petitioner no.1 as a party. He relied upon the

decision of this Court in the case of Shivaji Tulshiram Thakre .vs. State

of Maharashtra and others , reported in 2012(4) Mh.L.J. 453. After

having gone through the said decision, it is clear that there is force in

the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner

no.1 ought to have been joined as a party.

14. Be that as it may. While upsetting the concurrent findings

of fact recorded by the authorities below, the Hon'ble Minister found

that the statements of card holders are not recorded and though the

offence is registered against respondent no.4, till it is proved, in order

to avoid inconvenience to the card holders, it would be appropriate to

renew the authorization in favour of respondent no.4.

Judgment 11 WP6674.19.odt

15. The learned Assistant Government Pleader in pursuance to

the order passed by this Court on 22.09.2020 filed a pursis bearing

stamp No. 04/2020 along with the report dated 18.02.2019 of the

Tahsildar, Achalpur and the inspection report dated 26.04.2019 of the

Inspection Officer. Along with the said, the statements of card holders

recorded by the inspecting authority of the State Government are also

brought on record. The statements of the card holders would show

that an intimation was not given by the respondent no.4 after arrival of

the food grains in the fair price shop. Similarly, receipts were not given

to them. Also their statements would show that for which month the

food grains were distributed was also not made known to them. More

seriously some of the statements show that the food grains were sold at

higher price than the price fixed by the Government. Their statements

also show that though they are entitled for 18 Kgs wheat and 12 Kgs

rice, very few quantity was given to them. In the light of the

statements of the card holders, which are the part and parcel of the

proceedings, in my view, respondent no.1 - Hon'ble Minister has

mechanically passed the impugned order by observing that there are

no statements of card holders and in my view, such observation of the

Hon'ble Minister is contrary to the record and cannot stand to the

scrutiny of law.

Judgment 12 WP6674.19.odt

16. It is the submission of the learned counsel for respondent

no.4 that respondent no.4 was required to keep 35 bags of rice in the

house of Shri Sudhakar Bobde because on the next day, there was

house warming ceremony of her house and therefore, she requested

Bobde family to keep the bags of rice in their house, which had arrived

on that day by truck. Thus, the explanation given by the learned

counsel for respondent no.4 runs contrary to the statement of Shalini

Bobde and it is not argued before this Court that under any coercion or

allurement, said Shalini gave such statement. In her statement, Shalini

did state before the authority that on 31.01.2019 a truck came in front

of her house and the truck driver called her and he informed that as

per direction of respondent no.4 and her son, he wish to unload the

bags of rice in her house. Her statement further shows that respondent

no.4 did not transfer the said rice bags from her house.

17. There is no dispute that the Sessions Trial against

respondent no.4 is yet to be decided. However, it is also very clear that

at no point of time, respondent no.4 has filed any appropriate

application before the Sessions Court praying for discharge from the

criminal proceeding. It shows that at least till today, respondent no.4

has not disputed the prosecution case in the said criminal trial.

Judgment 13 WP6674.19.odt

18. In the case of Shashhikant S/o Chandrabhan Ghadge .vs.

State of Maharashtra and others , reported in 2013 (4) Mh.L.J. 469, this

Court has ruled that if the Minister does not properly consider the

complaint, the enquiry report of the Tahsildar and the orders passed by

the Appellate Court, then the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister

needs to be interfered with.

19. In the present case, this Court already found that the order

passed by respondent no.1 - Hon'ble Minister is contrary to the record

inasmuch as in spite of the statements of various card holders available

on record, it has been observed in the impugned order that there is no

material on record in respect of the irregularities.

20. The lapses on the part of respondent no.4 are not minor.

Those are very serious in nature. The object of the Government behind

running the fair price shop is to provide food grains to the needy and

poor persons at subsidized rate. However, it was found that

respondent no.4 has misused the quota of food grains given to her.

Further, one of the consideration for the Hon'ble Minister was that to

avoid inconvenience to the card holders, the authorization needs to be

granted. That is also contrary to the record inasmuch as on Judgment 14 WP6674.19.odt

25.02.2019, the Tahsildar, Achalpur had attached the cards of the card

holders of respondent no.4, to one Maa Bhawani Fair Price Shop,

Jawalapur and till the decision given by the Hon'ble Minister no

complaint was received by the Food Supply Department from any card

holder about any inconvenience.

21. In totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that the

order impugned is contrary to the facts. The order impugned is passed

without giving considering seriously the lapses committed by

respondent no.4. Consequently, I pass the following order :

ORDER

1. The writ petition is allowed.

2. The order passed by respondent no.1 - Hon'ble Minister,

Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, State of

Maharashtra, Mumbai dated 09.09.2019 in case No.

oSvv&[email protected]@ek-iq-23] is hereby quashed and set

aside.

3. The order passed by respondent no.3 - District Supply

Officer dated 30.04.2019 in Case No. [email protected]@[email protected]

           @[email protected]@2019         ; so also the order passed by

           respondent    no.2   -    Deputy   Commissioner    (Supply),
          Judgment                            15                       WP6674.19.odt

Amravati Division, Amrvati on 11.07.2019 in case no.

lh,l,l&[email protected]@2018&19 confirming the order passed

by respondent no.3, stand restored.

4. Needless to mention the observations made by this Court in

this judgment are for deciding this petition and the learned

Sessions Judge shall not get influenced by these

observations while deciding the Sessions Trial, in which

respondent no.4 is being prosecuted and the same shall be

decided in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute. No

order as to costs.

                                                   (V. M. Deshpande, J.)


                                                                            Digitally
Diwale                                                                      signed by
                                                                 Parag      Parag Diwale
                                                                            Date:
                                                                 Diwale     2021.01.21
                                                                            18:05:18
                                                                            +0530