*1* wp.8019.09.911.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8019 OF 2009 Chandrakant Baloba Khade. ..Petitioner -Versus- Sharad Brahmadev Devkar and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Abhijit Kadam i/b U.B.Nighot, for the Petitioner. Mr.Rahul S. Kate, for the Respondent No.1. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 11th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner who was the original Complainant and who brought to the notice of the authorities that the first Respondent who is fair-price shop dealer has indulged in several acts of omission and commission which amount to breach of the terms and conditions of the licence. The Petitioner made serious allegations and particularly about drawing of supplies in the names of certain ration-card holders registered at his shop although some of them have expired or have left the place of residence. Further there was allegation of diversion of stock meant for poor and below poverty line persons, to those who have been held to be above the limit for such benefits and concessions. The proceedings had indeed ended by an order dated 10.02.2009 of the Minister of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Maharashtra. By that order the first Respondent’s revision application challenging the order dated 02.12.2008 was partly allowed and the orders dated 02.12.2008 and 14.08.2008 have been set *2* wp.8019.09.911.sxw aside. The Respondent No.1 was directed to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and further the Minister directed an inquiry into the allegations that the Respondent No.1 has prepared the bogus receipts and thereby, misappropriated the stock. If the inquiry reveals any such act, he should be fined Rs.15/- per kilogram of the food grain items. 2 In response to this order, the inquiry was held by the Tahasildar, Indapur and he directed imposition and recovery of fine of Rs. 13,17,450/-. It is aggrieved by this order that the Respondent No.1 once again approached the concerned Minister and the Minister exercising his review jurisdiction under clause 24(1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 reviewed his earlier order and directed that the portion where the inquiry was directed against the Respondent No.1 for recovery of fine should be dropped. This order is dated 31.08.2009. 3 It is aggrieved by this order the Petitioner has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction. 4 After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the Minister was not justified in passing the order dated 31.08.2009. Even if the Minister was conferred of some powers of review, the order passed does not confer or meet with the requirement inasmuch as the Minister does not state as to what are the grounds which have been complied with in this case, namely, which is the material or evidence, discovery of which, was not possible or not within the knowledge of the Respondent No.1 despite due diligence or which is mistake apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason. A plain reading of the order dated 31.08.2009 discloses that the Revisional Authority, namely, the Minister has sought to review his order on merits as if he is higher court. That was clearly impermissible in law. Be that as it may, since the grievance of the Respondent No.1 is *3* wp.8019.09.911.sxw that the Tahasildar, Indapur acted in pursuance of the earlier order dated 10.02.2009 and held an inquiry, but without giving any opportunity to the Respondent No.1 of being heard; the interest of justice would be served if the following order is passed:- (a) The order dated 31.08.2009 of the Minister of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Maharashtra is set aside. (b) In pursuance of the order dated 10.02.2009 which was earlier passed and which is maintained, it is directed that the Tahasildar, Indapur shall hold an inquiry in terms of the said order and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two months from today. The Tahasildar shall give an opportunity to both, the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.1, to place before him such material as is available and permissible in law. (c) All contentions of both sides in such inquiry are kept open. (d) The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)