The power of revision under Clause 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 is not restricted to one revision. The State Government has the power to call for records and examine proceedings under Clause 24 of the Regulation, which includes the power of superintendence and review.

Headnote:
REVISION - MAHARASHTRA SCHEDULED COMMODITIES (REGULATION OF DISTRIBUTION) ORDER, 1975 - CLAUSE 24 - SECOND REVISION - MAINTAINABILITY - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND EXAMINE PROCEEDINGS - SCOPE AND EXTENT - INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE 24 - SUO MOTU POWER UNDER PROVISO - SCOPE AND EXTENT - DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES - PUBLIC INTEREST - WELFARE OF SOCIETY.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the order of the State Government allowing the revision by the second respondent, which allotted authorization to run the Fair Price Shop in favor of the second respondent. The petitioners contended that a second revision is not maintainable under Clause 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 (Regulation).
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that a second revision is maintainable under Clause 24 of the Regulation. The Court interpreted Clause 24 and held that the power of revision conferred on the State Government is not restricted to one revision. The Court also held that the suo motu power under the proviso to Clause 24 is wider than the revisional power and includes the power of superintendence and review. The Court further held that the State Government was right in reversing the orders of the Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officer and allotting the authorization of the Fair Price Shops to the second respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether a second revision is maintainable under Clause 24 of the Regulation? 2. Whether the State Government has the power to call for records and examine proceedings under Clause 24 of the Regulation? 3. Whether the State Government was right in reversing the orders of the Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that a second revision is maintainable under Clause 24 of the Regulation because the language of the clause does not restrict the revisional power to one revision. The Court also held that the object of the Act and Regulation is to control the distribution of essential commodities, which is a matter of public interest and welfare of the society. 2. The Court held that the State Government has the power to call for records and examine proceedings under Clause 24 of the Regulation. The Court interpreted the proviso to Clause 24 and held that the suo motu power conferred on the State Government is wider than the revisional power and includes the power of superintendence and review. 3. The Court held that the State Government was right in reversing the orders of the Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officer because the petitioners were ranked last in the priority, whereas the second respondent was ranked sixth. The Court also held that the second respondent had financial capacity and experience to conduct the Fair Price Shops.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners.

JUDGMENT - MANOHARAN L., J.:—The challenge in this writ petition is against Annexure-I order of the State Government allowing the revision by the second respondent.

The matter arose under Clause 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 (for short the Regulation). The revision was entertained by the 1st Respondent against the order of the Commissioner, Annexure-H. By this order the Commissioner confirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer allotting authorisation to run the Fair Price Shop in favour of petitioners 1 and 2.

2. Respondent No. 2, a Co-operative Society was conducting four separate Fair Price Shops in Wards Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in village Hivarkhed. Respondent No. 2 later amalgamated the four Fair Price Shops into two. Thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer of Akola decided to issue proclamation inviting applications for allotment of Fair Price Shops for Wards Nos. 2 and 4. In response to the said proclamation, the writ petitioners and respondent No. 2 along with others submitted applications. The Sub-Divisional Officer allotted the Fair Price Shop in Ward No. 2 to petitioner No. 1 and the Fair Price Shop in Ward No. 4 to petitioner No. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 2 preferred revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, as indicated, dismissed the revision by Annexure-H order. Respondent No. 2 thereafter filed a further revision under clause 24 of the Regulation. By Annexure-I order the 1st respondent reversed the orders of the Commissioner as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer and allotted the authorisation for the said Fair Price Shops also to the 2nd respondent.

3. Mr. R. K. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that under law a second revision is not maintainable, and therefore, the order at Annexure-I is infirm as the same has been rendered without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel maintained that the instant application cannot fall under the first proviso to clause 24 of the Regulation and, therefore, the order cannot be said as one under the proviso to Clause 24. It is also maintained by the learned Counsel that no circumstances existed for the exercise of the suo motu jurisdiction under the proviso to Clause 24. Alternatively, it was maintained by the learned Counsel that on merit also the second respondent should not have been favoured for conferring of authorisation of Fair Price Shop in question, as according to the learned Counsel, they themselves have admitted their incompetency to run and conduct the Fair Price Shop in Wards Nos. 2 and 4.

4. Mrs. Khade, learned Asstt. Government Pleader on the other hand maintained that a second revision is maintainable under clause 24, and alternatively it was maintained by the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader that at any rate the order is not without jurisdiction as the 1st respondent possessed the necessary jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders after examining the record of any enquiry or proceeding as per the first proviso to clause 24.

5. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel, referred us to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of (Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai)1, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 203 in support of his contention that a second revision is not maintainable under Clause 24 of the Regulation. It is maintained by the learned Counsel that this decision was reaffirmed in the case of (Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana)2, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1616. The decision Aundal Ammal case, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 203, arose under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (2 of 1965). Eviction of a tenant falling within the purview of the said Act was possible only as per an order under section 11(2) of the said Act. Appeal was provided for against the said order as per section 18 thereof, and revision against the order of the appellate authority was provided under section 20 of the said Act. The question that arose before the Supreme Court was, whether after revision under section 20 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis