Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1348
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Rajendra Devidas Kate – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2015
Decided On : 23-08-2017
For the Petitioner: P.S. Dighe.
For the Respondents: D.G. Kamble and S.K. Tambe.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the court to prevent abuse of its process and the obligation to approach the court with clean hands.
Headnote:
Irregularities - Fair Price Shop - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 3 and 7, Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 - The court discussed the irregularities committed by the respondent in operating the fair price shop and the legal provisions under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975. The court highlighted the principles of abuse of process of law and the obligation to approach the court with clean hands, as well as the duty of the court to prevent abuse of its process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order allowing the respondent's appeal against the cancellation of their fair price shop license due to irregularities in operating the shop. The court found that the respondent had committed irregularities and resorting to falsehood.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Hon'ble Minister failed in discharging his duties as the Revisional Authority of the State and quashed the impugned order, restoring the orders of the District Supply Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, Civil Supplies.
Issues: The issues involved the irregularities committed by the respondent in operating the fair price shop, the legality of the impugned order, and the duty of the Hon'ble Minister as the Revisional Authority of the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Hon'ble Minister failed in discharging his duties and restored the orders of the District Supply Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, Civil Supplies, based on the concurrent findings and the record maintained by the State.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the orders of the District Supply Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, Civil Supplies, were restored.
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, State of Maharashtra allowing Case No. 1115/Pra.Kra8/NA.PU.21 filed by respondent No. 5 herein. The petitioner is the original complainant against respondent No. 5 as regards the irregularities committed by it in operating the fair price shop. He has been respondent No. 3 in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Minister.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides and with their assistance, I have gone through the petition paper book and the record available with their assistance. The learned AGP has strenuously defended the impugned order and prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.
4. It appears from the record that respondent No. 5 is a Bachat Gat which was established comprising of 10 women. The record does not reveal that the said Bachat Gat was operating any fair price shop in between 1998 to 2010. On 04.10.2010, respondent No. 5 was allotted a license to operate a fair price shop.
5. The record reveals that the license of respondent No. 5 was suspended from 03.01.2012 till September 2013 due to several irregularities. During this period, the appropriate authorities had made an alternate arrangement in order to ensure that the supply of food grains is not interrupted and the card holders do not suffer on account of any interruption.
6. In March 2013, respondent No. 5 is said to have lifted a quota of the food grains though the license was suspended. The concerned Tahsildar registered an offence on 08.08.2013 under Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975. A show cause notice was issued to respondent No. 5 on 16.11.2013 by the District Supply Officer. Respondent No. 5 tendered her reply to the D.S.O. Dated 18.11.2013 under her signature and admitted that she has lifted the quota of food grains. Considering the same, the D.S.O. passed an order on 19.11.2013 cancelling the license of respondent No. 5.
7. It cannot be ignored that the Tahsildar had submitted a detailed report on 30.10.2013 to the District Supply Officer vide which the above aspects were brought to the notice of the D.S.O.
8. Respondent No. 5 preferred an Appeal No. 236/2013 before the Deputy Commissioner (supply), Aurangabad, respondent No. 3 herein. After causing a hearing in the matter, respondent No. 3 dismissed the appeal by order dated 04.09.2014 after recording that the order of the D.S.O. is justified and the cancellation of the license is sustainable. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Hon'ble Minister and which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 04.03.2015.
9. The petitioner has put forth prayer clause B and BB which read as under:
“B. Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to give date of hearing in the revision filed by the respondent No. 5 and decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and for that purpose issue necessary orders.
BB. Hold and declare that, the impugned order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Respondent No. 2 – Hon'ble Minister in the Revision filed by the Respondent No. 5 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and without following the principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and for that purpose issue necessary orders.”
10. The learned AGP has strenuously defended the order of the Hon'ble Minster. Despite his strenuous contentions, he was unable to point out a single justifiable reason from the impugned order by which it would appear that the Hon'ble Minister has applied his mind to the case. The learned AGP po
