1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1159 of 2011 [Santosh Trading Co. Vs. State of Mah. & others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anand Parchure, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. A. Parihar, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 25th August, 2011. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. A. Parchure for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Parihar for respondents. 2. In furtherance of our earlier orders dated 21st July, 2011, Additional Affidavit has been filed by respondents on 24th August, 2011. 3. Mr. Parchure points out that Paragraph 8 and other paragraphs of said affidavit are on complaints, because of which the authorities have at least reached a prima facie finding that petitioner was not supplying proper quantity of kerosene to retailers, or was then charging higher rate to them and, therefore, five retailers have been shifted from petitioner to somebody else. He states that though it is claimed that a decision has been taken after 2 enquiry conducted by Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner was not given any opportunity therein. According to him, this material adverse to interest of the petitioner is bound to continue on record, and can be used in future to his prejudice. 4. Learned AGP has supported the impugned action. According to him, while shifting five retailers from petitioner to other stockist, no order casting any stigma on the petitioner has been passed and it has been done administratively. The material has been disclosed to this Court because of challenge in present petition and hence action cannot be viewed as stigmatic. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of Writ Petition. 5. The affidavit clearly shows that five semi-wholesalers, or retailers earlier attached to the establishment of petitioner are now attached to some other stockist. The loss of business as such because of such transfer cannot be viewed as a stigma, but then grievance of those retailers that petitioner was not supplying proper stock of kerosene to them, or he was charging higher rate than the declared price prima facie appears to have been accepted. It is, therefore, apparent that had authorities so desired, a more stringent action in accordance with relevant Regulations could have been taken against the petitioner. 6. In this situation, without disturbing 3 the impugned action, and only to give petitioner proper opportunity in the interest of justice, we direct the respondent no.2 – Collector to hear the petitioner in the matter and thereafter take appropriate decision about shifting of quota to any other stockist. If, after hearing the petitioner, the Collector is satisfied that no such action was warranted, he is free to re- attach the detached retailers/semi-wholesalers. 7. Necessary action in this respect shall be initiated within a period of three weeks from today and appropriate orders, after hearing petitioner, shall be passed by 14th November, 2011. 8. Petition is, thus, partly allowed. No costs. Judge Judge |Hedau|