The main legal point established is the government's authority to cancel fair price shop licenses and impose penalties for violations, as well as the temporary nature of shop allotments pending ongoing litigation.

1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Both the learned Counsel, in the opening of their submissions, accepted that the writ petitions are to be finally heard and disposed of.

2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

3) The elaborate narration, with reference to the communications, correspondence in both the petitions, being identical, it is summarized as under:

A fair price shop was alloted to Gorakh Madhukar Gadkar (petitioner in WP No.4760/2009). The Government, having received several complaints of over-lifting of food stuffs earmarked for the persons below poverty line, did not reach the doorsteps of such needy persons, an in-depth inquiry was caused by Tahsildar, Gangapur, in which he found that it was a case of over lifting of food grains; not supplying the same to the card holders; manipulation of the record and consequently, show-cause notices were issued to such 138 license holders of fair price shops. Basically, these are the licenses issued by the Government to the concerned to distribute the food grains, within the parameters of the conditions imposed thereon. It will not have colour of an absolute right to challenge every action of the Competent Authority. It is incumbent upon each of the petitioners to point the order under challenge smacks with illegality; perversity or it has some different sheds, not obviously seen, but latent in its colour. With this, let us proceed to the deal with further factual details.

4) An in-depth inquiry, as stated earlier, has ramifications in issuing a show-cause notice to petitioner – Gorakh dated 7.8.2003 by District Supply Officer, Aurangabad. The opening line of the show-cause notice demonstrate and refer to Tahsildar’s inquiry and his report dated 10.7.2003. The notice informed petitioner – Gorakh has unauthorizedly lifted 102 quintals of wheat; it was not released/distributed to the card holders; it was sold in open market. The show cause notice also displayed, that there was no proper maintenance of Sale Register; distribution to the card holders is not accounted for; No demand letter of Tahsildar was submitted before lifting of the quota of food grains.

5) The contention of Mr.Talekar, that such show cause notice and the inquiry does not translate into access to petitioner – Gorakh to the Tahsildar’s inquiry, has prejudiced him, is basically incorrect. What was the outcome of the inquiry was pointed to petitioner-Gorakh. He was called upon to explain the same. The petitioner-Gorakh has, by his reply dated 27.8.2003, while replying the show cause notice, harped only one point in 67 pages that, he was not supplied with requisite inquiry report of the Tahsildar.

6) Petitioner has indeed no business to castigate the report, it was his duty to explain from available record as to how he was justified in appropriating 102 quintals of wheat or his record was up to date, that the wheat reached the empty stomach of such deserving people. The wayward submissions made by the petitioner, naturally had its brunt in the order dated 6.10.2003 by the District Supply Officer, Aurangabad. I quite see that the order of District Supply Officer is a cyclostyle order. However, fact remains, it depicts as to what has happened in the inquiry conducted and the reply, having been received from petitioner Gorakh therein. The ultimate outcome was, the petitioner’s fair price shop license was cancelled and deposit, which he has made, was forfeited. This was again subjected to by an appeal before the Competent Authority. In the meantime, there was a public notice dated 27.10.2003, calling upon the public at large to make applications for allotment of the shop in question. Different categories of applications were specified in the said notice. Pursuant to this public notice, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3010/2009 (Smt.Shobha Pawar) applied and her case was independently considered on its own merits and she got an order of allotment of