High Court
Legal Reasoning
6 9842-16-WP.odtThough 16 persons whose names were not found in the unitregister, food grains are distributed to them. Similarly, the foodgrains were distributed under the BPL scheme to 20 beneficiaries,whose names did not appear in the register. With regards to thefood grains which were distributed under the Antyoday LabharthiYojana as well as BPL scheme, the Minister has observed that thereis no clarity whether food grains were misappropriated by applicanthimself without distributing it to the beneficiaries.8.Though while referring to the illegalities of respondentNo.1 in the distribution of food grains, it is observed that it is aserious matter, however, again the Minister has taken a contrarystand observing that there is no clarity whether misappropriation iscommitted by the applicant. Immediately in the next line againMinister has taken conflicting view observing that, applicant has notproduced sufficient proof to rebut the allegations made against himand has observed further that it is doubtful and he is not surewhether applicant had distributed the food grains or he hasmisappropriated them. Minister further observed that prima facie itis not appropriate to arrive at a conclusion that applicant hasmisappropriated the scheduled commodities.9.The Minister after making above observations hasfurther pleased to observe that in the above facts andcircumstances he does not find any reason to interfere with theorder passed by District Supply Officer as well as the DeputySVH 7 9842-16-WP.odtCommissioner (Supply), Nashik Division, Nashik. After making aboveobservations, while passing the operative order the Minister hasquashed and set aside the orders dated 30/03/2016 and 16/02/2016passed by Deputy Commissioner (Supply) and District Supply Officerand recorded that the matter is remanded back to the DeputyCommissioner (Supply) for taking further action. It is furtherdirected that he should take decision in the matter within a periodof two months from the date of order and pending the decision ofDeputy Commissioner (Supply), order dated 18/05/2016 grantingstay, was directed to continue.10.Learned advocate for petitioner submits that the orderand observations passed by Minister are totally confusing andconflicting. There is no reason given as to on what ground thematter is remanded and as to why the matter is necessary to bedecided by the Deputy Commissioner within two months. It isobserved that the allegations are serious, however, there is nosufficient proof is produced by applicant to refute the allegationsagainst him. Yet the matter is remanded to Deputy Commissioner(Supply) to take final decision within two months and the orderspassed by Deputy Commissioner as well as District Supply Officerare quashed and set aside. The observations and findings recordedby the Minister are not only conflicting but are contrary to theoperative order, resulting into an order which is not supported byreasons. In fact, it would be more appropriate to state that theSVH 8 9842-16-WP.odtoperative order passed by the Minister is contrary to the reasoningrecorded by him. Hence, in that view of the matter, petitioner isseeking directions to quash and set aside the impugned order.11.Learned AGP opposed the prayer made by petitioner.12.Learned advocate for respondent No.1 who isrepresented by learned counsel Mr. Sanket Kulkarni, has opposedthe prayer of petitioner on the ground that when show-cause noticewas issued to him, he has satisfactorily replied the same. Hesubmits that he has supplied food grains as per the list issued byTahsildar, Amalner on 16/01/2013. He further submits that even the16 beneficiaries who were selected and sanctioned by theGramsabha for Antyoday Labharthi Yojana and BPL were distributedthe food grains as per the decision of the Gramsabha. According tohim, food grains received as per the quota by him is duly distributedto the ration card holders and he has accurately maintained up-to-date record.13.The record maintained by him is inspected byrespondent authorities from time to time. The deficiencies orillegalities at his end allegedly committed by him in the due courseof business have never been noticed by the authorities prior to thealleged inspection. The allegations regarding illegalities,irregularities and shortcomings in the functioning of his shop arevague. He further points out that, the concluding part of the reportsubmitted by Tahsildar, recommends a penalty which is beyond theSVH 9 9842-16-WP.odtscope of inquiry. Such recommendation by the Tahsildar wasunwarranted. So far as the public distribution system is concerned,the names of persons who are beneficiaries is maintained by theGovernment and deletion of all ineligible individuals and inclusion ofeligible persons is reviewed by the Government from year to year.Therefore, the fair price owner is not responsible for deletion oraddition of beneficiaries or card holders attached to his shop.14.Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate further submits that asper the Government resolution dated 20/06/2006, the DistrictSupply Officer has rightly passed the order and restored the licenseof fair price shop of respondent No.1, subject to the out come of theorder in present writ petition. Order of restoration of license hasbeen issued pursuant to the order passed by the Minister which ischallenged in the present writ petition. He further relied on theGovernment Resolution dated 12/11/1991 and the variousguidelines issued in respect of action to be taken against the fairprice shop license holders who are alleged to have committedmalpractices. In the said G.R. classification of malpractices is madeon the basis of defects i.e. 1) Minor nature defect, 2) Moderatenature defect and 3) Serious nature defect. Based on the nature ofdefect action to be initiated or proposed, is required to be taken.The District Supply Officer has not taken into consideration theabove aspect while passing the impugned order.15.It is further submitted by learned advocate forSVH 10 9842-16-WP.odtrespondent No.1 that pursuant to the stay to the license of fair priceshop of respondent No.1, the card holders of village Dahiwade areattached to various other fair price shops. Therefore, the cardholders are facing hardship on account of their cards being attachedto other shops. Due to the hardship faced by villagers they havemade representations to the District Supply Officer, Jalgaon,wherein they have claimed that respondent No.1 sold schedulecommodities regularly, but after the stay of license of respondentNo.1, they are suffering hardship, since their cards have beenattached to other shops. It is further submitted that petitioner hasfiled the writ petition only with an intention to grab the money fromrespondent No.1 and he has no locus standi to challenge the orderdated 08/12/2022, passed by District Supply Officer, Jalgaon.16.The learned advocate for respondent No.1 placesreliance on the circular dated 14/07/2023. According to him, thesaid circular has been issued pursuant to the order passed by thisCourt wherein this Court has made certain observations about thenotice to be given to respective parties for personal hearing beforethe authority. According to the order of this Court, giving less than24 hours’ notice or short notice of hearing is against principles ofnatural justice. Therefore, all the departments are instructed to giveat least five minimum working days notice to the parties in everymatter. According to him, he was not given sufficient opportunity foropposing the allegations made against him. He has also placed onSVH 11 9842-16-WP.odtrecord various affidavits filed by the card holders which is titled asdeclaration. Card holders have stated that after the license ofrespondent No.1 has been restored, they have started receivingfood grains irregularly. Therefore, license of respondent No.1 shouldbe restored and their cards should be attached to his shop.17.I have heard learned advocate for petitioner as well asrespondent No.1 and learned AGP. There cannot be any disputeregarding the fact that reasons recorded and observations made bythe Minister are totally contrary to the operative order passed byhim. As has been observed hereinabove, though the Minister hasaccepted that it is serious matter and serious doubt is created fromthe record whether applicant has distributed food grains to thebeneficiaries or has misappropriated the same, he has also recordedthat there is no misappropriation committed by applicant. Though itis also recorded that he does not find that any case for interferencein the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nashik,as well as District Supply Officer, Jalgaon is made out, in spite ofthat he has remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner(Supply), Nasik, for taking further action and decision. It is not clearas to what decision needs to be taken and the reason for remand. Itis also not clear as to on what ground the matter is remanded.Therefore, the order passed by the Minister is totally without anyrhyme or reason. There is no clarity in the order passed by theMinister. There is total absence of any reason recorded whileSVH
Arguments
1 9842-16-WP.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.9842 OF 2016Shamkant @ Pankaj s/o Jaywantrao PatilAge 32 years, Occ. Agri.R/o- Dahiwad, Tq. Amalner,Dist- Jalgaon… PetitionerVersus1]Smt. Kokilabai Vasudeo MaliAge 58 years, Occ. Fair Price Shop,R/o. Dahiwad, Tq. Amalner,Dist. Jalgaon.2]The State of MaharashtraThrough Secretary,Department of Food, Civil SuppliesAnd Consumer Protection,Mantralaya, Mumbai-323]The Learned Minister,Food and Civil Supplies,State of Maharashtra,Mantralaya, Mumbai-324]The Dy. Commissioner (Supply),Nasik Division, Nasik5]The District Supply Officer,Jalgaon, Taluka Jalgaon,Dist. Jalgaon.…Respondents…..Mr. B.R. Waramaa, Advocate for PetitionerMs. M.L. Sangit, AGP for Respondents/StateMr. Sanket Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Mr. Yogesh Jadhav, Advocate forRespondent No.1 ….. CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 14th JANUARY, 2025ORDER : 1.The order dated 06/08/2016, passed by the Minister,Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, State of Maharashtra,SVH 2 9842-16-WP.odtin Appeal No. oSvuk&1416@iz-dz-66@uk-iq-23, along with order dated08/12/2022, passed by the District Supply Officer, Jalgaon, has beenchallenged in the present writ petition.2.Petitioner claims to be a vigilant agriculturist fighting forthe rights of poor persons, he has also undertaken campaign ofawareness in respect of scheduled commodities sold in the shop ofrespondent No.1. He also claims that he has participated in inquiryconducted by Tahsildar, against respondent No.1. Respondent No.1was a license holder of fair price shop No.146, at village Dahiwad,Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. It is alleged by petitioner that fair priceshop owner of shop No.146 was playing fraud in the distribution ofscheduled commodities available in his shop. As a result the needyand eligible villagers were deprived of the scheduled commodities.They were not getting the commodities as per the price fixed byState Government.Sarpanch of the village had made complaint to therespondent authorities thereby mentioning details aboutirregularities committed by respondent No.1. The Tahsildar,Amalner, submitted a report pursuant to the inquiry which wasdirected to be conducted by him on 21/01/2016. Some of theirregularities committed by the respondent No.1 as per the reoprtare as under:1)Though one Mankarnabai Dagadu Shete had expired on20/12/2012, who was beneficiary of Antyoday Labharthi Yojana, herSVH 3 9842-16-WP.odtname was maintained in the unit register and total 1295 Kg foodgrains have been distributed in her name for a period of 37 months.2)Though in the unit register of Antyoday Labharthi Yojanamaintained by the Tahsil Officer, there were only 128 membersregistered, however, record indicates that 142 beneficiaries havetaken benefit of the scheme.4)When the beneficiaries under Antyoday Labharthi Yojana wereinspected, it was found that 16 members attached to Shop No.146who were not in the list maintained by the Tahsil Office, Amalner,have taken benefit of total 560 kg food grains.5)The BPL unit register of shop No.146 reflected that there were20 card holders who were not found in the list maintained by theTahsil Office.Irregularities amounting to malpractice committed byrespondent No.1 were observed in the report submitted by theTahsildar to District Supply Officer, Jalgaon. After receipt of said factfinding report, show-cause-notice was issued to respondent No.1 on25/01/2016 calling upon her explanation regarding the illegalitiescommitted by her. After receiving the explanation given byrespondent No.1, respondent No.5 District Supply Officer, has beenpleased to pass an order dated 16/02/2016 thereby cancelling thelicense of fair price shop of respondent No.1 in exercise of his powerunder the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of)Order, 1975, Part 3(2). SVH 4 9842-16-WP.odt3.Being aggrieved by that order, respondent No.1approached respondent No.4 Deputy Commissioner (Supply, NashikDivision, Nashik, by filing Revision Application No.18/2016. Aftertaking into consideration the allegations and record in respect ofirregularities and malpractices committed by respondent No.1, andafter affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, respondentNo.4 has been pleased to reject the Revision vide order dated30/03/2016, which was subject matter of challenge in the SupplyAppeal/Revision No.18/2016 filed before the Minister, Food and CivilSupply Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai. The Ministerhas decided the appeal/revision vide order dated 06/08/2016.Though initially the Minister has granted stay to the order passed byrespondent No.4 as well as respondent No.5 on 18/05/2016,however, eventually the Minister has been pleased to dispose of theappeal/revision vide order dated 06/08/2016. 4.Learned Advocate Mr. Waramaa, appearing for thepetitioner submits that the order of Minister is challenged by him onthe ground that there are no reasons recorded by the Minister in hisdecision. Whatever findings recorded are contrary and conflicting toeach other. At one place the Minister has observed that there areillegalities committed and immediately in the next line he is makingobservation that there is no proof which creates dilemma. In fact,the record was produced before the Minister and he has alsorecorded finding about illegalities committed by respondent No.1.SVH 5 9842-16-WP.odtHowever, there is no finding whether the Revision is allowed ordismissed.5.It is observed by the Minister that after taking intoconsideration the submissions of respective parties and documents,it is found that the Revision applicant has denied all the allegationsmade against him by giving explanation, however, upon goingthrough the documents and inspecting record it is found that thoughthe beneficiaries some from Antoyday Labharthi Yojana haveexpired, their relatives have taken benefit and got the food grainsdistributed in their favour. 6.While recording the stand of respondent No.1 it isobserved that the applicant has given explanation that. So far as 14beneficiaries in Antoydaya Labharthi Yojana are concerned, theyhave been distributed the food grains since they were declaredeligible by Gramsabha on 15/08/2012. Similarly, 20 beneficiarieswith orange card were declared to be eligible by GramSabha for BPLscheme, therefore, food grains were distributed to them. It is furtherobserved by the Minister that, however, the veracity of the abovedefence of respondent No.1 needs to be verified by the DistrictSupply Officer.7.Further there is an observation that scoring name byapplying whitener in the unit register of Antyoday Labharthi Yojanais a serious illegality. Food grains to the extent of 490 Kg have beendistributed to the beneficiaries under Antyoday Labharthi Yojana.SVH
Decision
12 9842-16-WP.odtdeciding the Revision. Even the observations recorded are contraryto one another. The order being erroneous, which reflects total lackof application of mind, deserves to be quashed and set aside, byremanding the Revision back to the Minister, Food, Civil Suppliesand Consumer Protection, to decide the Revision by passing areasoned order.18.Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. Orderdated 06/08/2016, passed by the Minister, Food, Civil Supplies andConsumer Protection, State of Maharashtra, in Appeal No.oSvuk&1416@iz-dz-66@uk-iq-23, is quashed and set aside. The matter isremanded back to the Minister to decide the revision afresh byaffording opportunity to the respective parties and pass a reasonedorder, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of thisorder. It is made clear that all the issues are kept open to beagitated. 19.In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.)SVH