[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nandkishor Onkar Mawaskar And Others vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, ... on 6 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:61
WP 3896 of 2021 - Judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3896/2021
PETITIONERS : 1. Nandkishor Onkar Mawaskar
COMPLAINANT Aged 40 yrs., Occ - Agriculturist.
2. Dharamdas Mangal Chirote,
Aged 57 yrs., Occ -Agriculturist.
3. Dayaram Pila Dhande,
Aged 58 yrs., Occ - Agriculturist.
4. Dinesh Raja Patel,
Aged 42 yrs., Occ- Agriculturist.
All R/o Tembli, Tah. Dharni, Distt. Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Department of Food Supply and
Consumer Protection, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Dy. Commissioner (Food Supply) Amravati
Division, Amravati.
3. District Food Supply Officer, Amravati.
4. Tahsildar, Dharni, Dist. Amravati.
5. Shivkumar Nathhuji Patil
Aged 50 yrs., Occ - Fair Price Shop Owner,
R/o Tembli, Tah. Dharni, Distt. Amravati.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms A.S. Lanjewar, Advocate h/f Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. S.B. Bissa, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4
Mr. S.M. Vaishnav, Advocate for respondent No.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP 3896 of 2021 - Judgment.odt
2
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Date of reserving the Judgment : 10/12/2025
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 06/01/2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
2. By the present petition, the petitioners challenge the order
dated 19/07/2021, passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Department of Food
Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra in
Case No.oSvv 1421/iz.क्र.59 ना.पु.23.
3. Respondent No.5 is authorized to run fair price shop at
village Tembli Tah. Dharni, District Amravati. The
petitioners/complainants are the cardholders attached to the fair price
shop of respondent No.5. The petitioners/complainants had lodged
complaint with respect to functioning of the fair price shop of the
respondent No.5. On the complaint made by the petitioners, the District
Supply Officer constituted Enquiry Committee for holding enquiry into
the allegations levelled by the petitioners/complainants. The Enquiry
Committee submitted report dated 14/12/2020 to the respondent No.3.
Respondent No.3 called explanation of respondent No.5, in view of
adverse report furnished by the Enquiry Committee. Respondent No.5
submitted his explanation disputing the findings by the Enquiry
WP 3896 of 2021 - Judgment.odt
Committee. After hearing the respondent No.5, the respondent
No.3/District Supply Officer (DSO) passed order dated 20/01/2021
holding that respondent No.5 was guilty of breach of Clause 18 (2) of
the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution)
Order, 1975 (for short hereinafter referred to as "Distribution Order,
1975") and was therefore liable for action, as contemplated under
Clause 3 (4) of the said Order. Respondent No.3 has recorded that the
respondent No.5 was guilty of misappropriation of wheat to the extent
of 22.6 quintals and rice to the extent of 11.36 quintals. The DSO also
recorded finding that although 2.49 quintals of pulses were allotted to
the fair price shop of the respondent No.5, sale of 7.54 quitnals of
pluses was found to be done. Apart from this, some other irregularities
are also recorded with respect to display of signboards in the shop.
Based on the aforesaid, the respondent No.3 ordered forfeiture 100%
security deposit, cancellation of authorization of fair price shop and
recovery of cost of wheat, rice and pulses, as per prevailing market
value.
4. The said order dated 20/01/2021, passed by the
respondent No.3/DSO was assailed by the respondent No.5 by filing
revision under Clause 24 of the Distribution Order, 1975. The said
revision came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply)
Amravati Division Amravati/respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has
WP 3896 of 2021 - Judgment.odt
confirmed the findings of fact with respect to variation in the quantities
of wheat, rice and pulses as also other non-compliances with respect to
display of signboards while dismissing the revision vide order dated
20/04/2021.
5. The aforesaid two orders came to be challenged by the
respondent No.5 by preferring a second revision under Clause 24 of the
Distribution Order, 1975. The said revision came to be partly allowed by
the Hon'ble Minister. The orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3
came to be quashed and set aside. The Hon'ble Minister directed fresh
inspection of the records of respondent No.5 in order to ascertain
veracity of allegations of misappropriation of food grains. The Hon'ble
Minister also directed the Authorities to record statements of at least
25% cardholders attached to the fair price shop of respondent No.5. It is
directed that appropriate decision be taken in the matter after
completing the aforesaid exercise. The Hon'ble Minister directed to
restore the authorization of fair price shop of the respondent No.5. The
aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Minister is challenged by the
petitioners/original complainants in the present petition.
6. At the outset, Mr. Vaishnav, learned Advocate for
respondent No.5 raises a preliminary objection with respect to
maintainability of the petition. He contends that the petitioners, who
are the original complainants, do not have locus to file the petition. His
WP 3896 of 2021 - Judgment.odt
contention is that a cardholder or complainant can, at best, complain to
the appropriate Authority with respect to alleged illegality or
irregularity in the functioning of a fair price shop. However, a
cardholder or complainant does not have locus to assail the orders
passed by the Authorities on his complaint. The learned Advocate places
reliance on the order dated 04/09/2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Vishvas Vs. The Ministry (Food, Civil Supply And
Consumer Protection) and others in Civil Appeal Nos.5605-5606 of
2023 in support of his contention.
7. Ms Lanjewar, learned Advocate for the petitioners counters
the contention by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the
case of Shivaji Tulshiram Thakre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
reported in 2012 (4) Mh.L.J. 453. Learned Advocate contends that the
Hon'ble Minister has committed serious error of law and jurisdiction in
quashing and setting aside the impugned orders, without recording any
positive findings as regards correctness or otherwise of the orders. She,
therefore, contends that the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister is
liable to be quashed and set aside.
8. In the matter of Shivaji (supra) a preliminary objection was
raised with respect to locus of the petitioner therein to challenge the
order passed by the Hon'ble Minister, in review under Section 24 (2) of
the Distribution Order, 1975. The petitioner in the said case was the
WP 3896 of 2021 - Judgment.odt
original complainant. Reliance was placed on earlier judgment reported
in 2012 (1) All MR 150 in support of the contention that petition at the
behest of the original complainant was not maintainable. This Court has
rejected preliminary objection. It is held that the ratio of the said
judgment will not be applicable to a petition arising out of the orders
passed under Clause 24 of the Distribution Order, 1975. This Court has
dealt with the provisions of appeal and revision under the Licensing
Order, 1979 and Clause 24 of the Distribution Order, 1975 and held that
although a complainant cannot have locus to file petition in case where
order is passed under the Licensing Order, 1979, a petition at the behest
of the complainant will be maintainable in case order is passed under
Clause 24 of the Distribution Order, 1975.
9. As regards the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Vishvas (supra) the said order does not specifically record
as to whether the order passed by the Authorities in the said case was
passed under Distribution Order, 1975 or Licensing Order, 1979.
However, paragraph 2 of the judgment makes a reference to appeal
preferred before the Commissioner. Provision for filing the appeal is
under the Licensing Order, 1979. There is no provision for appeal under
the Distribution Order, 1975. It, therefore, appears that the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertains to an order passed under the
Licensing Order, 1979.
WP 3896 of 2021 - Judgment.odt
10. This Court in its judgment in the case of Vishvas (supra)
has distinguished the provision of Distribution Order, 1975 and
Licensing Order, 1979 and has held that although petition at the behest
of complainant should not be entertained in case where order impugned
is passed under the Licensing Order, 1979, the same will be
maintainable in case where order is passed under Distribution Order,
1975. In view of the above, preliminary objection raised by the
respondent No.5 is liable to be rejected.
11. Mr. Vaishnav, learned Advocate for the respondent No.5
justifies the order stating that the Hon'ble Minister was well within his
Authority to order fresh enquiry in the matter. He contends that the past
conduct of the respondent No.5 is relevant consideration, which has
weighed with the Hon'ble Minister. He further contends that pursuant to
the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister, fresh enquiry has been
conducted and no adverse material is found against the respondent
No.5 in the said enquiry. Learned Advocate draws attention to letter
dated 09/02/2022, issued by the respondent No.3/DSO to the
Additional Secretary, stating that pursuant to the order passed by the
Hon'ble Minister fresh enquiry was held, in which statements of 102
cardholders were recorded and as per the said statements, the
cardholders were getting regular and complete supply of food grains
from the respondent No.5. His contention is that since adverse material
WP 3896 of 2021 - Judgment.odt
is not found against the respondent No.5 in fresh enquiry, the petition
should be dismissed.
12. Perusal of communication dated 09/02/2022 does not
indicate that enquiry report deals with the findings with respect to
misappropriation of food grains, on the basis of which, order dated
20/01/2021 was passed by the respondent No.3/DSO. Therefore, the
contention that the petition should not be entertained, in view of
aforesaid subsequent development, is liable to be rejected. This Court,
has, however, not expressed any final opinion as regards to subsequent
enquiry report since the respondent No.5 has merely filed on record
letter dated 09/02/2022 and the entire material, on the basis of which,
the said letter is issued, is not filed.
13. As regards merits of the matter, it must be noted that the
respondent No.3 has recorded a finding that the respondent No.5 was
guilty of misappropriation of food grains and has failed to observe other
conditions such as display of signboards etc. The respondent No.2 has
confirmed these findings while dismissing the revision.
14. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble
Minister will disclose that the Hon'ble Minister has not recorded a
positive finding that the findings recorded by the respondent No.3/DSO
or respondent No.2/Commissioner are incorrect or unsustainable. The
Hon'ble Minister has recorded that the respondent No.5 was running a
WP 3896 of 2021 - Judgment.odt
fair price shop in a tribal area for around 20 years without any
complaint in the past. The Hon'ble Minister has thereafter recorded that
out of 369 cardholders, statements of 269 cardholders were recorded
during the course of enquiry and that 221 cardholders stated that they
had no grievance against the respondent No.5. Having held so, the
Hon'ble Minister has recorded that the findings recorded by the
Authorities in the orders impugned before him also should not be
ignored. In the light of such observations, the Hon'ble Minister has
directed to hold fresh enquiry in the matter. The Hon'ble Minister has
directed to re-examine the records of fair price shop of respondent No.5
and also to record statements of at least 25% cardholders and thereafter
to take a fresh decision in the matter.
15. Perusal of Clause 24 (1) of the Distribution Order, 1975
will demonstrate that revisional powers under the said provision can be
exercised in order to arrive at satisfaction with respect to legality or
propriety of the order impugned and regularity of proceeding, in which
the order is passed. The scope of revision is limited. A Revisional
Authority can set aside the order impugned before it only upon
recording positive finding as regards legality or propriety of the
impugned order or any adverse findings with respect to regularity of
proceedings, in which the impugned order is passed. Under the said
provision, the Revisional Authority cannot act as if it is the first
WP 3896 of 2021 - Judgment.odt
Authority. In the case at hand, it is found that the Hon'ble Minister has
not recorded any positive finding that the findings recorded by the
respondent Nos.3 and 2/DSO and Commissioner respectively are illegal
or improper. Likewise, the Hon'ble Minister has not recorded any
adverse findings with respect to regularity of proceedings, in which,
orders were passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Hon'ble
Minister has quashed the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3
only because the respondent No.5 was running the fair price shop in a
tribal area for around 20 years without any complaint and around 221
cardholders made a statement that they had no grievance against the
respondent No.5. The Hon'ble Minister has clearly exceeded his
jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. The Hon'ble Minister
could have interfered with the impugned orders only on arriving at
satisfaction with respect to legality or propriety of the impugned orders
and/or regularity of proceedings.
16. The impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Minister thus
suffers from a serious jurisdictional error. The impugned order is clearly
unsustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. The matter
needs to be remanded to the Hon'ble Minister to decide the same afresh.
It is directed that the Hon'ble Minister, while deciding the revision
afresh, must record positive findings with respect to allegations of
WP 3896 of 2021 - Judgment.odt
misappropriation of food grains, on which, order of cancellation of
authorization is passed by the respondent No.3/DSO.
17. Accordingly, Writ Petition is partly allowed in the following
terms.
(i) Order dated 19/07/2021, passed by the Hon'ble
Minister, Department of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection,
Government of Maharashtra in Case No.oSvv 1421/iz.क्र.59 ना.पु.23 is
quashed and set aside.
(ii) Case No.oSvv 1421/iz.क्र.59 ना.पु.23 is remitted to the
Hon'ble Minister, Department of Food Civil Supplies for deciding the
revision afresh.
(iii) The Hon'ble Minister is requested to decide the
revision as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 31/05/2026.
(iv) Till the adjudication of revision on merits, the
respondent No.5 shall continue to run the fair price shop, if there is no
other adverse order or legal impediment in that regard.
18. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to
costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
Wadkar
Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/01/2026 17:20:15
