Bombay High Court
Prakash Gabba Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 30 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:27088
1 wp-13210-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.13210 OF 2022
Prakash S/o. Gabba Rathod,
Age. 56 years, Occ. Agri and Business,
R/o. Gokunda, T. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. The Minister,
Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Dy. Commissioner (Supply)
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
4. The District Supply Officer,
Nanded, Collector Office,
Nanded.
5. Sub-Divisional Officer,
Kinwat, Dist. Nanded.
6. Tahsildar,
Kinwat, Dist. Nanded.
7. Mohammad Latifoddin Mamid Bashiroddin,
Age. 53 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Gokunda, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded ...Respondents
...
Mr. Sambhaji S. Tope, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. R. P. Gour, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6/State.
Mr. A. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
...
CORAM : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.
RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 30, 2025
Narwade/
2 wp-13210-2022.odt
P.C.:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
parties heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. By the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is taking exception to the order
passed by Respondent No.2-Hon'ble Minister, Food, Civil Supply and
Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (hereinafter
referred to as "Respondent No.2-the Hon'ble Minister") dated
08.12.2022 thereby allowing the Revision Application bearing No. वैअम-
१११९/प्र.क्र.१९१/ना.पु.२१ filed by Respondent No.7. Beside challenging
the said order, the petitioner is also assailing the consequential order
dated 14.12.2022 passed by Respondent No.4-The District Supply
Officer, Nanded, pursuant to the impugned order dated 08.12.2022,
thereby regularizing the license of Respondent No.7 for running the
Fair Price Shop.
The facts which led to the filing of this Writ Petition can be narrated in
brief as under :
3. Suffice it to say that Respondent No.7 was running a Fair Price
Shop at Village Gokunda, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded. Pursuant to
several complaints from the cardholders attached to the Fair Price Shop
Narwade/
3 wp-13210-2022.odt
of Respondent No.7, Respondent No.5-Sub Divisional Officer, Kinwat,
Dist. Nanded canceled the license of Respondent No.7 to run the Fair
Price Shop at the said village. Respondent No.7 had challenged the said
order dated 05.08.2000 by way of revision before Respondent No.3-
Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad under the provisions of
Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution)
Order, 1975 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as "the
Order of 1975). Respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner (Supply)
however rejected the said revision filed by Respondent No.7 vide order
dated 23.06.2003 and confirmed the order of cancellation of Fair Price
Shop.
4. In the meanwhile, as the license of Respondent No.7 for running
the Fair Price Shop was cancelled, the cardholders attached to the Fair
Price Shop of Respondent No.7 were diverted to the Fair Price Shop of
the Petitioner who is also running a Fair Price Shop at Village
Shaniwarpeth, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded. Respondent No.7
thereafter preferred revision before Respondent No.2- the Hon'ble
Minister challenging the orders dated 05.08.2000 and 23.06.2003
under Clause 24 of the Order of 1975. Respondent No.2-the Hon'ble
Minister by its order dated 14.10.2009 partly allowed the said revision
filed by Respondent No.7 by setting aside both the orders dated
Narwade/
4 wp-13210-2022.odt
05.08.2000 passed by Respondent No.5 -Sub Divisional Officer and
order dated 26.03.2003 passed by Respondent No.3-Deputy Deputy
Commissioner (Supply) by imposing certain fine on Respondent No.7
and regularizing his license with further direction to recover an amount
of Rs.80,675/- from him.
5. The petitioner therefore challenged the said order dated
14.10.2009 before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.8435 of 2009
inter alia contending that the revision filed by Respondent No.7 after an
inordinate delay itself was not maintainable in view of provisions of
Clause 24 of the Order of 1975 as the said clause do not empower
Respondent No.2- the Hon'ble Minister to entertain the revision after
the expiry of 30 days, so also on the ground that while entertaining the
revision by Respondent No.2-the Hon'ble Minister, without there being
an application seeking condonation of delay, the delay has been
condoned.
6. In the said Writ Petition, Respondent No.7 have raised specific
objection regarding locus standi of the petitioner in filing the said Writ
Petition. This Court by a detailed judgment and order dated 25.01.2010
set aside the said order dated 14.10.2009 passed by Respondent No.2-
the Hon'ble Minister and restored the order passed by Respondent
No.3-Deputy Commissioner (Supply) dated 23.06.2003 by specifically
Narwade/
5 wp-13210-2022.odt
observing that the petitioner have a locus standi to file the Writ Petition
and thus by setting aside the said order dated 14.10.2009 passed by
Respondent No.2-Hon'ble Minister, the matter was relegated back to
Respondent No.2-Hon'ble Minister for considering the revision
application only after Respondent No.7 files an application for
condonation of delay and if such an application is filed this Court
directed Respondent No.2- the Hon'ble Minister to consider the said
application in accordance with provisions of law that too after giving an
opportunity of hearing not only to Respondent No.7 but even to the
petitioner as well.
7. An order dated 25.01.2010 passed by learned Single Judge was
assailed by Respondent No.7 before the Division Bench of this Court by
filing Letters Patent Appeal No.38 of 2010. Initially the Division Bench
of this Court by an order dated 26.02.2010 passed an interim order by
continuing the earlier order of status quo by dealing the issue about the
locus standi of the petitioner in filing the Writ Petition and by prima
facie opining about the petitioner's locus standi in filing the Writ
Petition. It is a matter of fact that Respondent No.7 thereafter
withdrawn the said Letters Patent Appeal, and the Division Bench of
this Court by an order dated 11.01.2019, disposed of the said Letters
Patent Appeal as withdrawn and even the Division Bench have also
Narwade/
6 wp-13210-2022.odt
passed an order of vacating the interim relief granted by it by an order
dated 26.02.2010.
8. Respondent No.7, after withdrawing the Letters Patent Appeal
No.38 of 2010 seems to have filed an application for condonation of
delay in filing the revision. To the said application for condonation of
delay, the petitioner have filed a detailed reply opposing the same not
only on the ground of inordinate delay but even by raising an objection
with regard to the maintainability of the said application itself.
Respondent No.2-the Hon'ble Minister, however, by impugned order
dated 08.12.2022 once again allowed the revision filed by Respondent
No.7 and set aside the order dated 05.08.2000 passed by Respondent
No.5-Sub Divisional Officer as well as order dated 23.06.2003 passed
by Respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad and
restored the license of Respondent No.7 by imposing a nominal fine of
Rs. 5000/- and further directing that an amount of Rs.80,675/- be
recovered from Respondent No.7. It was obvious that pursuant to the
said order dated 08.12.2022, Respondent No.4-District Supply Officer
passed an order dated 14.12.2022 by regularizing the license of
Respondent No.7 and that is how the petitioner have approached this
Court by way of this Writ Petition.
9. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Narwade/
7 wp-13210-2022.odt
AGP for the Respondents/State as well as learned Counsel for
Respondent No.7. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the annexures
annexed thereto.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner have assailed the
impugned order mainly on three grounds that (i) Respondent No.2-the
Hon'ble Minister have committed an error in entertaining the revision
which was hopelessly barred by limitation, (ii) while entertaining
revision pursuant to filing a delay condonation application seeking
condonation of 9 years, Respondent No.2-the Hon'ble Minister have
exceeded its jurisdiction by condoning such a huge and inordinate
delay which is contrary to Clause 24 of the Order of 1975, since the
said Clause 24 do not empower Respondent No.2-the Hon'ble Minister
to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days and (iii) even
assuming that Respondent No.2- the Hon'ble Minister is empowered to
condone the delay, however, while condoning the delay of near about 9
years, Respondent No.2-the Hon'ble Minister ought to have assigned
cogent reasons. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.2640 of 2019
in the case of Gautam Kathalu Hiwale Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and Others, wherein this court while deciding the said Writ Petition by
order dated 04.07.2019 have observed that considering the provisions
Narwade/
8 wp-13210-2022.odt
of Clause 24 of the Order of 1975, the Commissioner or the Hon'ble
Minister as the case may be do not have any power to condone the
delay caused in filing revision beyond the prescribed period of 30 days
in absence of such power and after taking into consideration various
provisions analogus to Clause 24 of the Order of 1975, this Court had
allowed the said Writ Petition.
11. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.7 on the other hand has
mainly raised an objection about the locus standi of the petitioner to
file the present Writ Petition by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Superintendent Engineer/Dehar Power House
Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (PW) Slapper and another Vs.
Excise and Taxation Officer, Sunder Nagar / Assessing Authority,
AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1380, and Poonam Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
2016 (2) SCC 779, and straneously contended that the petitioner
cannot be said to be a person affected or aggrieved and therefore, the
petitioner have no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition as it is
only as a result of cancellation of the license of Respondent No.7, the
cardholders those were attached to the Fair Price Shop of Respondent
No.7 were diverted as stop gap arrangement to the license of the
petitioner.
Narwade/
9 wp-13210-2022.odt
12. After considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the
petitioner as well as respondents, firstly it is pertinent to note that
Respondent No.2-Hon'ble Minister has not dealt with the aspect with
regard to his power to condone such a huge and inordinate delay of 9
years in filing revision by Respondent No.7 without adverting to the
provisions of Clause 24 of the Order of 1975. Be that as it may. Since I
propose to decide this petition on the grounds set out in the latter part
of this Judgment, the aspect as regards whether Respondent No.2-
Hon'ble Minister have power to condone the delay beyond the period of
30 days need not be gone into at this juncture and the said point is kept
open to be agitated and considered as and when the occasion would
arise.
13. In my considered view, the impugned order is unsustainable on
two counts firstly, if the impugned order is perused Respondent No.2-
Hon'ble Minister while condoning a huge and inordinate delay of 9
years, has not recorded any satisfaction that the explanation for delay
condonation was either reasonable and satisfactory. It is essentially the
pre-requisite for condonation of delay. As can be seen from the
impugned order the Respondent No.2- Hon'ble Minister have only
observed in the operative part of the impugned order that the delay
caused in filing the revision application stands condoned. It is settled
Narwade/
10 wp-13210-2022.odt
position of law that while dealing with an application for condonation
of delay when the delay is huge and inordinate, recording of
satisfaction that explanation for delay is either reasonable or
satisfactory is sine qua non. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. K.
ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and another, (1997) 7 SCC 556, in
paragraph no.3 has observed thus :
"3. It would be noticed from a perusal of the impugned order
that the court has not recorded any satisfaction that the
explanation for the delay was either reasonable or satisfactory,
which is an essential prerequisite to condonation of delay."
14. In the said case before the Hon'ble Apex Court the order passed
by the High Court in condoning an inordinate delay of 565 days
without assigning reason was set aside. In the case in hand also the
impugned order do not depict any such satisfaction nor it has assigned
any reason for condonation a huge and inordinate delay of 9 years and
on that count also the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set
aside.
15. Another ground on which an interference is warranted in the
impugned order is, admittedly respondent no.2- Hon'ble Minister has
considered the merit of the revision as well as the application for
condonation of delay simultaneously which is not permissible. When
admittedly there is a huge delay, Respondent No.2- the Hon'ble Minister
Narwade/
11 wp-13210-2022.odt
ought to have first proceeded to decide the application for condonation
of delay. It is only when the delay stands condoned by giving sufficient
reason that, the revision could have been taken up for considering it on
merits.
16. I am of the considered view that any Court, Tribunal, Judicial or
quasi judicial authorities should not decide the application for
condonation of delay and the main proceeding on merit simultaneously
for a simple reason that any decision rendered on delay condonation
application gives a right to an aggrieved party to assail the same before
a higher or an appropriate forum.
17. By deciding an application for condonation of delay and the
main proceeding simultaneously deprives an aggrieved party to
challenge the order passed on an application for condonation of delay
before the appropriate forum. Similar view has been taken by this Court
in the case of Shankar Ramrao Rangnekar Vs. Narayan Sakharam
Sawant and Ors, 2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 706. In the light of decision of this
Court in the case of Shankar Ramrao Rangnekar (supra), the order
deciding revision as well as the application for condonation of delay
filed by Respondent No.7 simultaneously is erroneous.
18. So far as objection raised by Respondent No.7 regarding locus
Narwade/
12 wp-13210-2022.odt
standi of the petitioner to file the Writ Petition is concerned, admittedly,
while allowing the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in earlier round
of litigation i.e. Writ Petition No.8435 of 2009, an objection of locus
standi of the petitioner raised by Respondent No.7 has already been
turned down and the said finding have attained finality by virtue of
withdrawal of the Letters Patent Appeal No.38 of 2010 by Respondent
No.7, so also by virtue of vacation of the interim relief meaning thereby
the observations of the learned Single Judge while holding that the
petitioner has locus standi to file the petition has not been disturbed
and therefore the objection raised by Respondent No.7 to that extent is
devoid of any substance. In short Respondent No.7 had accepted the
findings of learned Single Judge that the petitioner have locus standi to
file the petition and now again Respondent No.7 cannot be allowed to
raise this plea by applying the doctrine of acquiescence.
19. Considering the fact that the impugned order has been passed
without assigning any reason for condonation of delay of almost 9 years
and also without considering the vital aspect that the application for
condonation of delay and revision on merit could not have been
decided simultaneously, therefore the Writ Petition deserves to be
allowed.
20. I therefore pass the following order :-
Narwade/
13 wp-13210-2022.odt
:: ORDER :
:
i. The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 08.12.2022, passed by Respondent
No.2-Hon'ble Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai, bearing No.वैअम-
१११९/प्र.क्र.१९१/ना.पु.२१, is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii. Respondent No.2-the Hon'ble Minister is directed to decide the
delay condonation application filed by Respondent No.7 afresh after
affording an opportunity of hearing to Respondent No.7 as well as the
petitioner by giving cogent reasons.
iv. All issues to be agitated by both the parties are kept open.
v. Respondent No.2-the Hon'ble Minister is directed to decide the
delay condonation application within a period of 12 weeks from today.
vi. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
Vii. Rule is thus made absolute in the above terms.
[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.]
Narwade/
