1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 23.2.2012, passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

3. The background facts leading to file this petition, as disclosed in the petition, are as under:-

a) The petitioner alongwith other villagers had made a complaint to the Tahsildar and requested for conducting enquiry regarding mismanagement and irregularities committed by respondent No.5 in running the fair price shop and kerosene licence of respondent No.5 at village Sonegaon, Tq and District Osmanabad. On 4.1.2009, the Naib Tahsildar, Osmanabad has conducted inquiry, verified the record, statement of the villagers were recorded and panchnama was drawn. On 5.1.2009, the Naib Tahsildar, submitted report of enquiry to the Tahsildar, Osmanabad.

b) On 28.1.2009, District Supply Officer Osmanabad issued directions to register crime against respondent No.5. On 12.3.2009, the District Supply Officer cancelled the licence of fair price shop and kerosene licence of respondent No.5. He has also forfeited the deposit amount of respondent No.5.

c) Respondent No.5 did file revision application No. 103 of 2009 before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 by order dated 1.4.2009, remitted the matter back to the District Supply Officer for re-enquiry. It is the case of the petitioner that being aggrieved by the order dated 1.4.2009, passed by respondent No.3 herein, allowing revision filed by respondent No.5 and remitting the matter back to respondent No.4, is challenged by filing revision on 27.4.2009 before the Minister i.e. respondent No.2 and the said is yet pending before the Minister.

d) It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad remitting the matter back to respondent No.4, during the course re-enquiry in respect of fair price shop of respondent No. 5, a special meeting of Gram Sabha of said village was called. In the said Gram Sabha many complaints and irregularities were stated by the villagers. Crime No. 28 of 2010 came to be registered against respondent No.5 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. After the Gram Sabha, the Tahsildar again conducted inspection of fair price shop of respondent No.5. On the basis of inspection conducted by the Tahsildar and after making necessary enquiry, District Supply Officer cancelled the licence of fair price shop of respondent No.5. On 20.8.2010, respondent No.5 filed revision before the Additonal Commissioner (Supply), challenging the order passed by the District Supply Officer cancelling the licence to run fair price shop on 12.8.2010. On 4.5.2011, revision filed by respondent No.5 before Additonal Commissioner (Supply) came to be rejected.

e) It is further case of the petitioner that on 26.6.2011, the District Supply Officer issued letter to gram Panchayat stating therein that the Government intends to allot fair price shop to the Mahila Bachat Gat. On 11.7.2011, respondent No.5 herein filed writ petition No. 5348 of 2011. On 11.8.2011, this Court directed respondent No.2 to decide revision filed by respondent No.5 within four months. Pursuant to the said order, on 23.2.2012, the Minister allowed the revision. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the order passed by the Minister is non speaking and does not assign the reasons for cancelling the order of District Supply Officer and restoring fair price shop with respondent No.5. It is submitted that the Minister ought to have taken into consideration the report of Tahsildar, reasons assigned by the Additional Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad and also the record made available by the District Supply Officer and should not have interfered with the decision of the District Supply Officer to cance