High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} wp2584-20.docdrpIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.2584 OF 2020Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Cooperative SocietyThrough Chairman, Laxman Punjaji Bansode PETITIONERVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS.......Mr. K. M. Nagarkar h/f Mr. R. S. Shejul Advocate for PetitionerMrs. M. L. Sangit, AGP for Respondent - State ....… [CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.] DATE : 3 rd FEBRUARY, 2025 ORDER :1.Petitioner has challenged order dated 17th July, 2019passed by State Minister, Food, Civil Supply and ConsumerProtection Department, Mantralaya Mumbai in Appeal No.2016/SB/RP-494 & 496.2.It is the contention of the Petitioner that under theauthorization of the competent authority, he was holding licencefor running fair price shop and also kerosene license. There wereno complaints against the Petitioner by card holders regardingdistribution of food grains or kerosene. No irregularity wascommitted by the Petitioner while running the fair price shop. Itis submitted that there was a scam about distribution of food {2} wp2584-20.docgrains from Government Godown. It is his contention that fromthe articles published in newspaper, it appeared thatGovernment Employees from Supply Department havecommitted fraud in supply of food grains from GovernmentGodown. After the publication of news items, complaint came tobe lodged by Investigating Officer, Kotwali Police Station,Parbhani in August, 2016 against the persons involved in CrimeNo. 305 of 2016 punishable under sections 420, 409, 468, 471read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 7of the Essential Commodities Act.3.During investigation of the said crime, 37 persons werefound involved in the crime and most of them were governmentservants. During investigation son of the petitioner PawanLaxman Bansode was arrested and was subsequently releasedon bail.4.It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitionerthat Petitioner has no concern with the said crime and his sonwas arrested with mala fide intention in order to suspend fairprice shop licence of the Petitioner and also to malign his image.During investigation, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Parbhanidirected District Supply Officer, Parbhani that son of thePetitioner is involved in the crime and had been arrested. It was {3} wp2584-20.docalso submitted in the report that there are certain discrepanciesfound in the fair price shop of the Petitioner and irregularities arecommitted by the Petitioner while distribution of food grains andthe food grains were black marketed. As a result, there was fraudplayed on the Government. Due to the report submitted by theInvestigating Officer, authorization of the fair price shop of thePetitioner was cancelled vide order dated 20th September, 2016.5.Being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of licence ofhis fair price shop, by District Supply Officer, Parbhani thepetitioner filed Revision Application No. 2016/SB/RP-494 & 496on 18th November, 2016. During Pendency of the RevisionApplication, the District Supply Officer, Parbhani issuednotification / proclamation on 10th August, 2017 for allotment offair price shop. The Revision Application filed by the Petitionerwas rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabadon 16th October, 2017. The Petitioner, thereafter, approached theMinister, Food, Civli Supply, Consumer Protection Department.6.It is contended by the Petitioner that along with thePetitioner other similarly situated persons who were holding fairprice shop licence and kerosene licence, also approached theMinister, challenging the similar orders. In their cases, RevisionApplications have been allowed by the Minister, however, {4} wp2584-20.docRevision Application filed by the Petitioner has been rejected.7.Learned Advocate for the Petitioner relies on the orderspassed by the Minster in cases of Pratibha Pradip Damkande,Janardhan Manikrao Deshmukh and Sheshrao Vitthal Panchal whoare exactly similarly placed like the Petitioner. In their cases, theMinister has allowed the Revision Applications filed by them andset aside orders of rejection of licence passed by the DeputyCommissioner. It was further directed that licence fee should bedeposited with the Government and the concerned licenceholders shall distribute food grains only through the POSmachines and they will also undertake that in future they will notindulge in any malpractice or irregularity in distribution of foodgrains. On the condition of undertaking being taken from theconcerned applicants, their licence were directed be restored. Itwas further directed that after restoration of the licence,statements of card holders who are beneficiaries should berecorded and registers maintained in the shop should beinspected. On the inspection of documents, if it is found that theconcerned licence holders have committed any malpractice,appropriate action as permissible under the law should be takenagainst them. On the said terms and conditions, licence of therespective shop holders were restored. {5} wp2584-20.doc8.However, in the present case, the Revision Application filedby the Petitioner has been rejected out rightly. The Reasonsassigned by the Minister for rejection of Revision Applicationappears to be that while inquiring about the stage of theinvestigation, it was informed that there is no positive orderpassed in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore, considering theoffence registered against the son of the Petitioner and inabsence of any positive order in his favour during theinvestigation, Revision Application of the Petitioner has beenrejected by the Minister.9.It is the contention of the Petitioner that so far as the firstorder of cancellation of liences is concerned, it is passed withoutany notice or even for that matter any inquiry. Therefore, thesaid order becomes unsustainable, since the principles of naturaljustice have not been followed. Even otherwise, so far as thescam on the basis of which office has been registered againstson of the Petitioner is concerned, the Godown Keeper has takenthe responsibility of malpractice and irregularities committed inthe Government Godown. Therefore, there is no allegation assuch, against the Petitioner of any irregularity or malpractice inthe fair price shop. All the allegations regarding malpractice andfraud committed, are in respect of the Government Godown.Even though the Petitioner has pointed out all these facts before {6} wp2584-20.docthe Deputy Commissioner (Supply) as well as the Minster, it werenot taken into consideration and the Revision Application hasbeen rejected.10.Learned AGP has opposed the prayers made in the Petition,relying on the affidavit. It is her contention that due toinvolvement of the son of the Petitioner in the crime, the licenceof the fair price shop of the Petitioner was cancelled and theorder impugned has been passed. So far as orders passed by theMinister in the Revision Applications filed by the similarlysituated persons, is concerned, it has not been denied in theaffidavit. 11.After going through the order passed by the Minster in thecase of the Petitioner as well as orders in the cases of similarlysituated persons, it appears that though favourable orderssetting aside order of District Supply Officer as well as DeputyCommissioner (Supply) have been passed by the Minister in caseof the similarly situated persons, same benefit is not extended tothe Petitioner. Though in the Revision Applications filed bysimilarly situated persons, their licence have been restored oncertain conditions, the same benefit has not be extended to thePetitioner, though he was similarly situated. In the case of thePetitioner also the order of cancellation of licence without
Legal Reasoning
{7} wp2584-20.docaffording opportunity of hearing was passed, which is bad in law.Therefore, the order passed by the Minister in the case of thePetitioner is quashed and set aside and the RespondentAuthorities are directed to restore licence of the fair price shop ofthe Petitioner on the same terms and conditions as have beendirected by the Minister in cases of Pratibha Pradip Damkande inRevision No. Veyam-1019 / PraKra.160 / Napu.21, JanardhanManikrao Deshmukh in Revision No. Veyam-1019 / PraKra.173 /Napu.21, and Sheshrao Vitthal Panchal in Revision No. Veyam-1019 /PraKra.159 / Napu.21.12.Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. [ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE ] JUDGE drp/wp2584-20.doc