Bombay High Court
Vishwanath Vithoba Kambale vs Honble Minister, Food And Civil ... on 29 January, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 WP7212.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7212 OF 2016
PETITIONER : Vishwanath Vithoba Kambale,
Aged about 60 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Regaon, Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Washim.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] Hon'ble Minister,
Food and Civil Supply, Consumer Protection,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] Deputy Commissioner (Supply),
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3] District Supply Officer, Washim,
Tq. & Dist. Washim.
4] Kailash Rustamrao Ghuge,
Aged about 55 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Regaon, Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Washim.
5] Prakash Bhasu Pawar,
Aged about 54, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Regaon, Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Washim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N. A. Gawande, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. I. J. Damle, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mr. J. J. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent no.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 29, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
2 WP7212.16.odt
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is represented by Mr. N.A. Gawande,
learned counsel, respondent nos.1 to 3 are represented by learned
Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Indraneel Damle and respondent
no.4 is represented by Mr. J.J. Chandurkar, learned counsel. Even
according to the petitioner, presence of respondent no.5 is not
necessary for decision of this writ petition.
3. Respondent no.1 - Hon'ble Minister on 07.9.2015
allowed the revision bearing No. VAA-1313/Case no.158/NP-23 filed
on behalf of respondent no.4 Kailash Ghuge. Against that, the
present petitioner filed writ petition before this Court i.e. Writ
Petition No. 6450/2015 by submitting that though the present
petitioner was an objector, he was not joined as a party in the
revision proceeding before the Hon'ble Minister by the respondent
no.4. The petitioner's earlier writ petition was allowed by this Court
on 14.06.2016 by remanding the matter back to the Hon'ble
Minister. After remand, the present petitioner was joined as a party
to the revision and after hearing the present petitioner, vide order
dated 11.11.2016 the review application filed by the present
3 WP7212.16.odt
petitioner was rejected by the Hon'ble Minister. Against that, the
present writ petition is filed.
4. It is not in dispute that respondent no.4 was having
authorization to run a fair price shop at village Regaon. The said
was attached to the fair price shop of one Shri Narote at village
Mungala. The authorization was to expire on 31.12.2010.
Therefore, respondent no.4 on 16.9.2010 filed an application before
the Tahsildar, Malegaon that he be permitted to run his licence and
auhrorization No. 58/1993. On this application, the Tahsildar
submitted his report to the respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer,
Washim. Respondent no.3, on 13.12.2011 gave a communication to
the Tahsildar, Malegaon to verify whether there are any criminal
prosecution against respondent no.4. In pursuance to that, the
Tahsildar on 21.01.2012 gave his report that no criminal prosecution
was lodged against respondent no.4. He also submitted two sets of
the statements of the villagers, one set of statements of villagers was
opposing the respondent no.4 for running the fair price shop. The
petitioner and respondent no.5 were the persons who were opposing
respondent no.4. Their statements were recorded on 11.01.2012.
Similarly, on the very same day, other villagers gave their statements
that they have no objection for allowing respondent no.4 to run the
4 WP7212.16.odt
fair price shop. Thereafter, respondent no.3 - District Supply Officer
on 08.06.2012 passed an order in which it is specifically observed
that due to the political rivalry in the village, two sets of statements
are there. He, however, allowed the request made by respondent
no.4 to run the fair price shop. Against this, a revision was filed
before the respondent no.2 - Deputy Commissioner (Supply) ,
Amravati. Said authority passed the order on 28.02.2013 dismissing
the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner and other objectors. At
the same time he directed that the security of the respondent no.4 be
forfeited and fresh proclamation should be issued. This order was
challenged by respondent no.4 before respondent no. 1 - Hon'ble
Minister. In that, respondent no.5 was joined as a party, however
the petitioner was not joined as a party and as observed in the
preceding paragraph, after allowing the said revision, the petitioner
filed writ petition before this Court making a complaint that he was
not made party and after remand, his review petition was dismissed.
5. Here, I would like to observe one thing that after the
revision filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by the
respondent no.2 - Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Amravati on
28.02.2013, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not
challenge the said order. Consequently, the order passed by
5 WP7212.16.odt
respondent no.2 - Deputy Commissioner (Supply) confirming the
order dated 08.06.2012 has reached its finality. If that be so, in my
view, respondent no.1 - Hon'ble Minister has not committed any
mistake in overlooking the objection for review of his earlier order.
6. No case is made out for interfering with the impugned
order dated 11.11.2016 passed by respondent no.1 - Hon'ble
Minister. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order
as to costs.
V. M. Deshpande, J.
Diwale
Digitally signed
by Parag
Parag Diwale
Date:
Diwale 2021.02.01
12:18:56
+0530
