Advocates:
['CHOUDHARI SUSHANT B', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'G P']

1 W.P. 4977.2012 - [ J ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 4977 OF 2012

Ishwar S/o Vithalrao Mohite

Age : Major, Occ. Agril. &

Kerosene Licence holder,

R/o : Ghodki, Tq. Washi,

Dist. : Osmanabad.

.... PETITIONER

V E R S U S

1.

The State of Maharashtra

Through the Secretary

Food and Civil Supply

Department, Mantralaya,

Mumbai – 32.

2.

The Dy.Divisional

Commissioner [ Supply ],

Aurangabad Division,

Aurangabad.

3.

The District Supply Officer,

Osmanabad, Dist. :

Osmanabad.

4.

The Tahsildar

Washi, District :

Osmanabad.

.... RESPONDENTS

Mr. S.B.Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. B.V.Wagh, A.G.P. for the State.

2 W.P. 4977.2012 - [ J ]

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 31/08/2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.

2.

The petitioner, is a Police Patil and runs a retail kerosene

shop at village Ghodki, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad since the year 1997.

3.

The respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice to the

petitioner calling explanation from the petitioner as to why the kerosene

dealership should not be cancelled as he was appointed as Police Patil.

The said notice was issued relying on the Govt. Resolution dated

13/10/2006. The respondent no. 3 thereafter cancelled the kerosene

retail licence of the petitioner on the count that petitioner being a Police

Patil is a Govt. servant and not entitled for licence of kerosene retail shop.

4.

The petitioner being aggrieved by order of respondent no. 3

filed Appeal before the Commissioner [ Supply ]. The Commissioner

[ Supply ] dismissed the said Appeal. The petitioner preferred Revision

before the Hon’ble Minister. The Hon’ble Minister dismissed the Revision.

3 W.P. 4977.2012 - [ J ]

Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed.

5.

Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the Govt. Resolution dated 13/10/2006 has been mis-read by the

authorities. The said Govt. Resolution does not bar the Police Patil from

running the business in the said village. The Govt. Resolution dated

13/10/2006 only lays down that the kerosene licence can not be in the

name of Govt. servant. According to the learned counsel, the said Govt.

Resolution is introduced pursuant to Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Civil

Services [ Discipline ] Rules, 1979 [ For short, ‘ Rules of 1979 ’ ] . Police

Patil is not covered within said rule.

6.

The learned counsel further contends that the post of Police

Patil is a honorary post and he receives the honorarium and not salary.

The learned counsel further contends that as per Rule 8 of the

Maharashtra Village Police Patil [ Recruitment, Pay, Allowances and other

conditions of service ] Rules, 1968 [ For short, ‘ Rules of 1968 ’ ], the

Police Patil can engage in local business in the village. The kerosene shop

is run by the petitioner in the same village of which he is Police Patil.

7.

The learned counsel further contends that Rule 16 of the

Maharashtra Civil Services [ Conduct ] Rules, 1979 do not apply to the

4 W.P. 4977.2012 - [ J ]

persons appointed as Police Patil under the Maharashtra Village Police

Patil Act, 1967, so also sub rule ( 3 ) of Rule 1 of the Rules of 1979.

8.

In view of that, the learned counsel contends that the

impugned order being illegal, deserves to be set aside.

9.

Mr. B.V.Wagh, learned A.G.P. support