[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
M/S. Darvesh Grain Stores, Through Mr. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 11 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:11973
22-wp8401-2014 final.doc
MPBalekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8401 OF 2014
M/S. Darvesh Grain Stores,
Through Mr. Rajesh Maruti
Darvesh ... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. P.A. Pol a/w S. Suryawanshi and Ranjit H. i/by Pol
Legal Juris for the petitioner.
Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP, for the State - Respondent
Nos. 1 & 3.
Mr. P.R. Pawar, Rationing Officer, present in person.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 11, 2026
P.C.:
1. The challenge in the present writ petition arises from an
order passed by the Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer
Protection. By the said order the licence of the petitioner in respect
of ration shop bearing No. 32-E-222 came to be suspended. Along
with the suspension of the licence, the entire security deposit
amount of Rs. 5,000/- furnished by the petitioner was also
forfeited. The petitioner has approached this Court contending that
the punishment imposed is wholly disproportionate to the
allegations made against him and that the authority has acted
contrary to the governing Government Resolution which prescribes
the nature and extent of punishment in such matters. The
22-wp8401-2014 final.doc
grievance of the petitioner is therefore not merely against the
finding recorded by the authority, but more particularly against the
severity of the punishment imposed, which according to him
travels beyond the limits prescribed by the policy of the State
Government.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my
attention to the show cause notice dated 19 June 2014 which
formed the very foundation of the impugned action. According to
him, a careful reading of the show cause notice shows that only
two defects were alleged against the petitioner. The first allegation
was that at the time of inspection the ration shop holder was not
personally present in the shop. The second allegation was that the
box meant for depositing complaints regarding missing ration
cards was not fixed in the shop premises. Learned Counsel
submitted that these two defects were of a minor nature and were
essentially procedural lapses. It was further argued that the show
cause notice itself did not contain any allegation of diversion of
food grains, malpractice in distribution, or any act affecting the
public distribution system in a serious manner. Thus, according to
the petitioner, the very basis of the proceedings shows that the
alleged lapses were limited in scope and could not justify such a
severe penalty as suspension of licence and total forfeiture of the
security deposit.
3. Learned Counsel then invited my attention to the
Government Resolution dated 12 November 1991 issued by the
State of Maharashtra. He submitted that by this Resolution the
State Government has framed guidelines prescribing different
22-wp8401-2014 final.doc
categories of irregularities committed by ration shop licensees and
has also indicated the nature of punishment which may be
imposed for each category. The Resolution clearly distinguishes
between serious illegalities and minor irregularities. It also
specifies the maximum punishment which can be imposed in each
category. According to the learned Counsel, the two allegations
mentioned in the show cause notice clearly fall within the category
of minor irregularities under the said Government Resolution. In
such cases the Resolution provides that the maximum punishment
which may be imposed is forfeiture of up to fifty percent of the
security deposit. It was therefore argued that the authority
exercising revisional jurisdiction ought to have remained within
the limits prescribed by the Government policy and could not have
imposed a punishment which is far more severe than what the
Resolution permits.
4. Upon perusal of the said Circular and the material placed on
record, it becomes evident that the two defects mentioned in the
show cause notice indeed fall within the category of minor
irregularities contemplated by the Government Resolution dated
12 November 1991. Absence of the shop holder at the time of
inspection and failure to install a complaint box for missing ration
cards do not by themselves indicate any misuse of ration articles or
manipulation in distribution. These lapses may indicate lack of
proper compliance with administrative requirements. However
they do not amount to serious misconduct affecting the
functioning of the public distribution system. The Government
Resolution itself recognizes this distinction and therefore limits the
22-wp8401-2014 final.doc
punishment in such cases. In view of this position, the maximum
penalty which could have been imposed upon the petitioner was
forfeiture of fifty percent of the deposited amount. However, from
the impugned order it appears that the petitioner's licence was
suspended and the entire amount of security deposit of Rs. 5,000/-
was forfeited. Such action clearly travels beyond the limits
prescribed in the Government Resolution. When the State itself has
laid down a structured policy for regulating punishment, the
authority is expected to act within that framework. Deviation from
such policy without any justification cannot be sustained. For this
reason the order suspending the licence of the petitioner cannot be
upheld.
5. There is one more aspect which requires consideration. It
appears that Respondent No. 1, while deciding the revision filed by
the petitioner, has additionally imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/-
upon the petitioner. This penalty has been imposed for reasons
which are not reflected in the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner. The law is well settled that a person against whom
action is proposed must be informed in advance of the exact
allegations for which he is required to explain his conduct.
Punishment cannot be imposed on grounds which were never put
to the person concerned. In the present case the show cause notice
only referred to the two minor defects already discussed. There
was no allegation in the notice which could justify imposition of an
additional monetary penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.
6. The writ petition is partly allowed.
22-wp8401-2014 final.doc
(i) The impugned order passed by the Minister, Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Protection suspending the licence of
the petitioner in respect of ration shop bearing No. 32-E-222
is set aside.
(ii) The order directing forfeiture of the entire security
deposit is modified. Instead of forfeiture of the whole
amount, only a sum of Rs. 2,500/- shall stand forfeited.
(iii) The remaining amount of Rs. 2,500/- shall be refunded
to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.
(iv) Clause 3 of the impugned order directing the petitioner
to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- is set aside.
7. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. There shall
be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
