The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for authorities to remand a matter for reconsideration after setting aside orders on technical grounds.

JUDGMENT

Arun R. Pedneker, J. - By the present Writ Petition the petitioner is challenging the legality of the order dated 15.01.2019, passed by Respondent No.2 / Hon'ble Minister in Revision No. VaiAaMa-1118 / PraKra.145 / NaPu-21, upholding the order of the Respondent No.4 / Assistant Commissioner (Supply) dated 06.05.2016. And, so also, the order dated 06.05.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad / Respondent No.4 in OW. No.2016/SB/Ri.Pi.302; whereby the order dated 16.01.2016 of cancelling the license of the Respondent No.7 to run the fair price shop passed by Respondent No.5 / District Supply Officer is set aside on technical grounds.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the Writ Petition is heard finally.

3. Heard Mr. D. P. Palodkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, learned AGP for the Respondent / State and Mr. N. R. Pawade, learned Counsel for Respondent No.7.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was the card holder with Respondent No.7 and Respondent No.7 has committed serious illegalities in running the fair price shop i.e. selling food grains at a very exorbitant price, non issuance of the receipts etc. and, thereafter, several complaints were made against Respondent No.7 in running the fair price shop. Thereafter, Gram Sabha passed a Resolution seeking to initiate action against Respondent No.7. In pursuance of the Resolution passed by the Village Panchayat, the Tahsildar forwarded the complaint to the District Supply Officer. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted by the District Supply Officer. On recording of the statements of various villagers and card holders, Respondent No.5 / District Supply Officer cancelled the license of Respondent No.7 to run the fair price shop No.123. Respondent No.7, preferred Revision before Respondent No.4 / Assistant Commissioner (Supply) and the matter was remitted back by Respondent No.4 / Assistant Commissioner (Supply). Thereafter, Respondent No.5 / District Supply Officer passed fresh order cancelling the license of Respondent No.7.

5. In a Revision filed before Respondent No.4 / Assistant Commissioner (Supply), Respondent No.4 / Assistant Commissioner (Supply) held that there was denial of natural justice and Respondent No.7 was not heard while passing the order and, as such, the order passed by Respondent No.5 / District Supply Officer was set aside. The Petitioner challenged the order passed by Respondent No.4 / Assistant Commissioner (Supply) before Respondent No.2 / Hon'ble Minister and Respondent No.2 / Hon'ble Minister also maintained the order passed by Respondent No.4 / Assistant Commissioner (Supply). By the present petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister so also Respondent No.4 / Assistant Commissioner (Supply).

6. It is the primary contention of the petitioner that though there were certain illegalities committed by Respondent No.7, Respondent No.4 / Assistant Commissioner (Supply), so also, Respondent No.2 / Hon'ble Minister has set aside the orders passed by Respondent No.5 on technical ground of denial of natural justice but has failed to remit the matter back for reconsideration. The Petitioner submits that he has pursued the matter for such a long period of time and that Respondent No.7 has committed various illegalities in running the fair price shop and is not entitled to run the fair price shop to the detriment of card holders.

7. Per contra, Respondent No.7 submits that the Petitioner is no more the card holder of fair price shop of Respondent No.7 and from 2014 onwards the Petitioner shifted his card to the second fair price shop available in the village and that the Petitioner cannot espouse the cause after shifting the card to some other fair price shop. Respondent No.7 further submits that he has been running successfully the fair price shop without any complaints after it's restoration till today and that interference at this stage would