Back
2013 Supreme(Bom) 522
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
S.S. SHINDE, J.
Bapu s/o Jagalu Dhormare & Another
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through the Minister Shri Anil Deshmukh, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection department & Others
Writ Petition No. 335 of 2012
Decided on : 05-03-2013
For the Petitioners:R.P. Bhumkar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3, K.J. Ghute Patil, AGP, R4, Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate.
Headnote:Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 3 - Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Order, 1975, Clause 24(2) - Cancellation of licence of fair price shop.
Order of Minister, Revisional Authority, allowing 2nd Revision and restoring licence of respondent, shop owner by imposing mere fine even observing that a criminal case is filed against respondent, not sustainable. - Upon careful perusal of the findings recorded by the Minister, it is abundantly clear that, respondent No. 1 has not considered all aspects of the matter and the orders passed by the authorities below. The Minister though observed that there is criminal case filed against respondent No. 4, however, overlooking to the said fact, has allowed the revision by imposing fine of Rs. 10,000/- and given an opportunity to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 1 should not have exceeded his jurisdiction and should have confined himself within the revisional powers, that too, while entertaining the second revision. By way of impugned judgment and order, the Minister has partly allowed the revision observing that one more opportunity is required to be given to respondent No. 4 to run the fair price shop and for distribution of kerosene to the card holders. Such findings is answered against the interest of card holders. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to reproduce therein below the objects of Essential Commodities Act : -
"The object of the Essential Commodities Act is to provide, in the interests of the general public, for control of production, supply and distribution of trade and commerce in commodities which are specified in the Act to be essential commodities. The power of search and seizure are incidental and supplementary to other powers which are necessary to secure the objects for which the Essential Commodities Act has been passed.
The very object of the Essential Commodities Act is to check the inflationary trends in prices and to ensure equitable distribution of essential commodities.’’
Therefore, considering the object of the Act, as quoted above, the Minister should have given importance to the interest of the card holders rather than the interest of respondent No. 4. When there is overwhelming material placed on record by the petitioners and there is report by the Tahsildar who is responsible Government Officer at Taluka place and further such report has been accepted by the District Supply Officer and action of District Supply Officer to cancel the licence granted in favour of respondent No. 4 has been upheld by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), who as rejected first revision filed by respondent No. 4, by any such stretch of imagination, respondent No. 1 by cryptic finding should not have partly allowed the revision of respondent No. 4. Such exercise of powers by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Minister of Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, is contrary to reasons and objects of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.
2. This petition takes exception to the order date 13.10.2011, passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra, State, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Revision No. VAM-1011/P.K./179/N.P.21.
3. The background facts, which lead to institute the present writ petition, as disclosed in writ petition, in nutshell, are as under:-
a) The petitioners herein are the card holders of the fair price shop of respondent No.4 and on the basis of the complaints made by the petitioners and other villagers, the licence to run the said fair price shop has been cancelled. The said fair price shop was allotted in favour of respondent No.4 for village Mendha. Respondent No.4 was selling the food grains at higher rate and was giving less quantity of food grains to the card holders. He was also selling the food grains and kerosene in black market. Therefore, the petitioners and other card holders made complaints against respondent No.4 to the respondent authorities.
b) After receipt of the complaint, the Tahsildar, Osmanabad made Enquiry and during the course of enquiry it is found that, there was excess quota of food grains in the shop of respondent No.4. The card holders were not receiving the goods in time. Respondent No.4 used to close down the shop frequently. He also used to sell the goods at higher rate etc.. The Tahsildar, Osmanabad accordingly had submitted the report of inspection to the District Supply Office, Osmanabad. For such illegalities and irregularities, an offence punishable under Section 3 and 7 of the essential Commodities Act was also registered against respondent No.4. Accordingly, acting upon the said report, the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad had issued show cause notice to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 had filed reply to the said show cause notice. However, according to the District Supply Officer, the reply filed by respondent No.4 was not satisfactory and therefore, by his order dated 12.8.2010, the District Supply Officer, has cancelled the licence of respondent No.4 to run the fair price shop.
c) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad, dated 12.8.2010, respondent No.4 preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, after hearing both sides and after considering the evidence on record, by order dated 07.01.2011 dismissed the revision filed by respondent No.4 and confirmed the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by respondent No.3.
d) Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2011, passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.4 filed revision before respondent No.1.
e) It is further case of the petitioners that inspite of having available all record before respondent No.1, however, without considering the illegalities and irregularities committed by respondent No.4, respondent No.1 permitted respondent No.4 to run the fair price shop and kerosene licence by imposing fine of Rs.10000/-. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1 has committed error in allowing the Revision filed by respondent No.4 and the reasoning is unsustainable in the eyes of law. There is no provision in the Act or Rules which permits the authority to condone the illegalities committed by the Licensee and permit him to run the License by imposing only fine. Thus the Hon’ble Minister has exceeded his jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the Minister has also held that, respondent No.4 was guilty and the charges levelled against him are proved. However, he has allowed the Revision by observing that one opportunity is required to be given to respondent No.4. On perusal of evidence on record, it would reveal that all charges levelled against respondent No.4 have been proved. Both the authorities have concurrently held that char
