A.H. Joshi, J. Admit

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Tathod waives service for respondent no.5. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Thakre, waives service for respondent nos.1 to 4.

3. Appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent. Facts in brief

4. Petitioner is the license holder of fair price shop which was run at village Chandai, Tahsil Mangrulpir, District Washim.

5. Inspection of the shop was conducted by authorities. Various irregularities and violation of the terms of the license were noticed and was reported by Tahsildar to the District Supply Officer.

6. After service of show cause notice and receipt of reply, District Supply Officer cancelled the license of the present appellant by order dated 20th October 2003.

7. The respondent no.3 had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner by way of intervention application which was allowed.

8. The appellant preferred appeal before Deputy Commissioner which was decided against him. Aggrieved by the same, appellant herein approached to the Government, invoking exercise of powers of the review under clause 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1975 which is hereinafter referred to as said orders.

9. It is seen that the present respondent no.5 was arrayed as respondent no.3 before the Hon'ble Minister.

10. The review application was heard by the Hon'ble Minister and was decided by order dated 2nd March 2009.

11. The Hon'ble Minister has recorded the facts in brief in his order. He has then recorded reasons in paragraph 5 of the order. Hon'ble Minister has referred to one amongst the irregularities of stock being found in excess. Hon'ble Minister has then observed that the food-grains which were to be distributed to the schools under the scheme of nutritious food to students were not distributed and were found lying in the shop of the petitioner.

12. The acts/omissions of present appellant have been viewed by Hon'ble Minister as an irregularity than an act of misappropriation.

13. Hon'ble Minister then took a view that the license of the petitioner can be continued by imposing on him penalty of Rs.10,000/-, and confiscation of stock of food-grains found in possession of the license holder in excess, and to distribute the same under public distribution system and amount thereof be deposited in Government Treasury.

The writ petition

14. The respondent no.5 who was respondent no.3 filed writ petition No.1950/2009 before this Court against Hon'ble Minister's order before learned Single Judge of this Court.

15. The appellant herein had filed in said writ petition, an application raising preliminary objections to the locus standi of the present respondent no.5 i.e. the writ petitioner.

16. The Averments contained in said application in relation to the grounds of objection to locus standi can be found in para 2 of said application. It was urged therein that, the respondent no.5 claims himself to be a Sarpanch of village Chandai, which is factually incorrect. Due to this lack of status and a false statement, it was urged that the respondent no.5/writ petitioner does not have any right whatsoever, to challenge the order passed by Hon'ble Minister, and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

17. It is seen that Rule was not issued on the said civil application of present appellant and the writ petitioner was neither called, nor he had filed reply. Thus said application was not heard separately.

18. It is an admitted fact that the said writ petition was taken up in the motion hearing itself for final hearing.

19. The learned Single Judge has decided the writ petition after hearing the parties.

20. It is seen that learned Single Judge found that the power of review available to the Hon'ble Minister under Clause 24 (2) of said orders which provided for a review prescribes the grounds on which review could be entertained.

21. It is obvious that the review was not done by the Minister on the ground of error apparent on the face of record.

22. The learned Single