Ramrao Shaligram Ingole vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5472 Bom

                                                                             21wp3539.23.odt
                                                 1

                   THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 3539 OF 2023


     PETITIONER:                Ramrao Shaligram Ingole,
                                aged about 60 years., Occ. Agriculturist,
                                R/o. At post Pedgaon, Tq. Mangrulpir,
                                Dist. Washim.

                                           ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS: 1] The State of Maharashtra, through
                     Hon'ble Minister, Department of
                     Food & Civil Supply, Mantralaya,
                     Mumbai.

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

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

                                4] Bandubhau Bhikaji Vaidya,
                                   Aged about 45 years, Occ. Nil,
                                   R/o. Pedgaon, Tq. Mangrulpir,
                                   Dist. Washim.

                               5] Ramdas Dashrath Mahole,
                                    aged about 50 years, Occ. Nil.
                                    R/o. At post Pedgaon, Tq. Mangrulpir,
                                    Dist. Washim.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Mr. Aquib M. Haque, Advocate for petitioner.
                      Mr. N.R.Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
                      Mr. Anup Gilda, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 & 5
     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                                             DATE          : 12/06/2023.


                                                                    21wp3539.23.odt




     1]                Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the respective learned counsel appearing for

the parties.

2] The petition challenges the order dated 16.5.2023

passed by the respondent no.1, rejecting the revision filed by the

petitioner, resulting in cancellation of the foodgrain license of the

petitioner.

3] It is material to note that in the earlier round of

litigation in Writ Petition No. 6621/2017 (Ramrao Shaligram

Ingole vrs State of Maharashtra and ors) this Court by the

judgment dated 25.7.2022 had indicated the relevant issues

which were required to be considered by the respondent No.1 in

para 4 of the judgment and had remanded the matter back to the

respondent no.1 with a direction that the respondent no.1 shall

record a categorical finding as regard to the relevant points

referred to in para 4 thereof. The points framed required the

position prior to 1.9.2010, the date on which the petitioner had

21wp3539.23.odt

filed a complaint alleging that he had lost all his documents in

relation to his fair price shop, to be considered.

4] Presuming the correctness of the complaint, for the

sake of argument, it is not disputed by learned AGP that under

the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Rules

framed thereunder, the District Supply Officer has to carry out

regular inspection and so also has to make enquires into any

complaint filed against the petitioner/fair price licensee. All this

record is therefore obviously with the authorities. A perusal of the

impugned order does not indicate that any such material has

been placed before the learned respondent no.1 and therefore

considered by him.

5] Mr. Gilda, learned counsel for respondent nos.4

and 5 as well as learned AGP appearing for Respondent nos.1

to 3 have been unable to point out from the impugned order, any

such position. When this Court had by the judgment dated

25.7.2022 in W.P. No. 6621/2017 indicated the relevant issues, it

was incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to have considered

21wp3539.23.odt

them, in light of material which was available with the respondent

no.3, which ought to have been placed on record and considered.

Failure in this regard, clearly vitiates the impugned order and the

same therefore cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated

16.5.2023 is therefore quashed and set aside and the matter is

remanded back to respondent no.1 to decide the revision afresh by

taking into consideration the record available with the respondent

no.3 and the other authorities prior to 1.9.2010, which

consideration shall be reflected from the order which may be

passed by the respondent no.1.

6] The parties shall appear before the respondent no.1 on

26.6.2023 at 11 a.m. and no separate notice for the said purpose is

necessary. The Respondent no.1 thereafter to procure the relevant

record and decide the revision in 60 days thereafter.

7] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

JUDGE Rvjalit