1 ra61.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 61 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 789 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3578 OF 2011 Ramesh S/o Nivrutti Jamraj ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.N. Dhorde with Mr. S.T. Veer, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. S.B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocates Mr. Dhorde with Mr. Veer for applicant, Mr. Ghatol Patil for respondent nos. 5 and 6 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. In view of the grievance that learned Counsel for review applicant was prohibited by just and sufficient reason from assisting this Court on 10.01.2011, therefore, the Civil Application no. 3578 of 2011 is allowed and delay is condoned. 2 ra61.11 3. Prayer in this Review application is to recall the judgment dated 10.01.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 789 of 2006 allowing the same. 4. Advocate Mr. Dhorde states that review applicant is the respondent no.5 in that Writ Petition but as name of advocate for applicant did not correctly appear in cause list, the matter was not noticed and hence, the Advocate was prohibited from appearing on that day and assisting the Court. He contends that the original petitioner no.1-Gangadhar was not the card holder and hence had no locus to file Petition. Petitioner no.2 joined before this Court who was never the complainant and his assistance was taken only to approach this Court by petitioner no.1 so as to avoid objection about the maintainability. On merits, it is pointed out that there was already a complaint against the shop of review applicant on 01.03.2004 and on the strength of that complaint, the action was taken and security deposit of his shop was forfeited on 20th April, 2004. Inspite of this, on 07.06.2004, very same grievance was reiterated and was again looked into and order adverse to the interest of the review applicant came to be passed. Review applicant had pointed out that he had already suffered for that error and hence, he could not have been punished twice for the same. The appellate authority namely Deputy Commissioner, Civil 3 ra61.11 Supplies erroneously held that impugned action was independent. The review applicant then approached the Hon'ble Minister and Hon'ble Minister after appreciation of controversy restored the fair price shop of the review applicant. He contends that as the applicant could not render necessary legal assistance on 10.01.2011, all these details could not be pointed out to this Court. 5. Advocate Mr. Ghatol Patil and learned A.G.P. opposed the prayer for review and they support the impugned order. 6. In view of the grievance that the name of Advocate did not appear correctly in cause list and the matter could not be noticed to it, I have heard the Advocate Mr. Dhorde on merits also. The contention about absence of locus to petitioner is sought to be substantiated by pointing out order of this Court dated 10.08.2010 in Writ Petition no. 2257 of 2009. There challenge was to order of Minister dated 06.12.2007 and by person claiming himself could be the businessman. This Court noticed that he was not card holder nor he was in any way affected by the orders impugned in the Petition before it. The said businessman had also not claimed that he had approached this Court in public interest. Before this Court, it is not in dispute that the petitioner no.1 filed complaint initially on 01.03.2004 and then reiterated it on 07.06.2004. Therefore, this 4 ra61.11 order dated 10.08.2010 is not relevant here. In any case, petitioner no. 2 is card holder who also assailed order of restoration of authorization in favour of applicant. 7. The filing of second complaint is definitely after the action taken against the shop of review applicant. The order of the Deputy Collector in appeal passed on 25.08.2004 has looked into this aspect and found that after receipt of later complaint, the Inspecting Officer had gone to the spot on 19.06.2004 and recorded the statements of 54 cardholders. The review applicant was then given a show-cause notice and his explanation was called. That explanation was received on 12.07.2004. It is therefore obvious that the separate action has been taken after receipt of second complaint and hence, earlier order dated 20th April, 2004 has got no bearing on the later order. 8. The adverse order of Deputy Commissioner dated 25.08.2004 was assailed by review applicant before the Hon'ble Minister. The Hon'ble Minister has found certain lapses and irregularities but then inflicted fine of Rs. 10,000/- upon him, again forfeited security deposit and warned him but permitted starting of fair price shop. This order inflicting penalty and warning was not questioned by review applicant thereafter and has attained finality. 5 ra61.11 Respondent nos. 5 and 6 then questioned that order in Writ Petition no. 789 of 2006. The fact that petitioner no.2 is card holder is not in dispute. 9. Observations made by this Court in its judgment dated 10.01.2011 in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 notice inappropriateness on the part of Hon'ble Minister. This Court has found "in-fact, what the Hon'ble Minister termed as "error" is the misconduct and act of exploitation of the consumer". It is not necessary for me to reproduce the conclusions in paragraph nos. 4 and 5. This Court found that for grave and serious lapses, the shop could not have been restored. 10. I therefore find that though the present review applicant was not heard, this Court has looked into all necessary aspects and there is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Even after hearing of learned Counsel today on merits, I do not find anything on record necessitating a different approach. Application for review is therefore rejected. No costs. 11. After request of Advocate Mr. Dhorde, interim orders passed by this Court on 18th March, 2011 on Civil Application no. 3578 of 2011 are continued for a period of two weeks more and shall cease 6 ra61.11 to operate automatically thereafter. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/ra61.11