Bombay High Court
Sunita Suresh Darak vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 3 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:302
1 32-WP.9748-21, oral jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9748 OF 2021
Sunita Wd/o Suresh Darak,
Age : Major Years, Occu. : Agri. & Business,
R/o Naya Nagar, Hussain Colony,
Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad,
Tq. & District Aurangabad. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Food, Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply),
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The District Supply Officer,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
4. The Food Grain Distribution Officer,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh P. Kale.
AGP for Respondents-State : Mrs. M. L. Sangit.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 03.01.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2 32-WP.9748-21, oral jud.odt
2. The petitioner was running a fair-price shop in
Aurangabad. However, the District Supply Officer suspended
the license to run the fair price shop on 29.09.2018. Against
the suspension, the petitioner had preferred a revision
application before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply),
Aurangabad, on 26.03.2019 with a prayer to condone the
delay of four (4) months and 24 days. The Deputy
Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, had, by the order dated
08.01.2020, dismissed the revision application on the sole
grounds that the delay was not properly explained. The
petitioner had impugned the said order before the Hon'ble
Minister of Food and Civil Supply, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The
Hon'ble Minister also dismissed the petition by order dated
22.03.2021. The petitioner's contention is that the petition
before the Hon'ble Minister was only against the refusal to
condone the delay. However, the Hon'ble Minister has also
considered the merits. He also argued that when the Deputy
Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, did not pass the order on
merit, the Hon'ble Minister ought not to have passed the order
considering the merits of the case. Therefore, both orders were
illegal and incorrect.
3 32-WP.9748-21, oral jud.odt
3. The Learned AGP for the respondents/State has
vehemently opposed the writ petition. She would submit that
the petitioner's contention has not been considered this way or
otherwise. The strict rule of the procedure is not applicable to
the cases before the authorities, as they are in a quasi-judicial
jurisdiction. The petitioner has no good case for condonation of
delay. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. A small question before the Court is whether the delay in
preferring the revision before the Deputy Commissioner
(Supply), Aurangabad, caused in preferring a revision against
the order of District Supply Officer, Aurangabad, dated
29.09.2018 is liable to be condoned.
5. The petitioner's case was that he approached the
revisional authority soon after knowing about the impugned
order. There was no deliberate delay. The petitioner runs a fair-
price shop. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad,
should have taken a lenient view in condoning the delay. The
right of the petitioner has been involved. The illegality and
correctness of the District Supply Officer's order dated
29.09.2018 were to be examined. Unfortunately, the revision
petition of the petitioner was dismissed on the sole ground of
no satisfactory explanation for the delay. It appears that the
4 32-WP.9748-21, oral jud.odt
reasons for the delay are acceptable. It was a fit case to
condone the delay. The right to protest the suspension of the
fair-price shop licence was involved. Therefore, in the interest
of justice and for protecting the rights of the petitioner, delay is
liable to be condoned, and an opportunity to hear the applicant
on merit should be granted. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order of Deputy Commissioner (Supply),
Aurangabad, passed in O.W.No.2019/SB/Ripi-69,
dated 08.01.2020 and the order of the Hon'ble
Minister, Food and Civil Supply, Mantralaya,
Mumbai, passed in Vai.a.mum.1121/Pra-Kra
35/Napu 21, dated 22.03.2021 have been quashed
and set aside.
(iii) The delay caused in preferring the revision against
the order of the District Supply Officer,
Aurangabad, in case No.2018/Swa.Dha.Du./
Pra.Kra.15, dated 29.09.2018, stands condoned.
(iv) The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad,
is directed to hear the petition on the merits
against the impugned order of the District Supply
Officer, dated 29.09.2018 and decide the revision
within one (1) month from the receipt of this
order.
5 32-WP.9748-21, oral jud.odt
(v) The petitioner is to appear before the Deputy
Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad on
15.01.2024.
(vi) The rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
Signed by: Vaishali Mahesh Kale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/01/2024 18:32:08
