WP 4173/07 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4173 OF 2007 Azij Shabbir Pathan, Age 38 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Shekapur, Post Sawargaon, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Food & Civil Supply Department, Mantralaya, Bombay -32. 2. The District Supply Officer, Osmanabad. 3. The Tahsildar, Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. 4. The Tahsildar, Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. 5. Baba s/o. Shahabuddin Shaikh, Age 36 yrs., Occu. Business, R/o. Shekapur, Post Sawargaon, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Respondents. Mr. V.M. Humbe, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Mane, Advocate for respondent No. 5. (Absent) CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 1st March, 2011. WP 4173/07 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Advocate Shri. Humbe for petitioner, learned A.G.P. Shri. Korde for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Nobody appears for respondent No. 5 even to second call. Matter was called out yesterday and Advocate Smt. M.A. Kulkarni informs the Court that she has already withdrawn the Vakalatnama and Advocate Shri. Mane is representing the respondent No. 5. Advocate Shri. Mane was absent yesterday and is not present even today. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that though charges of grave and serious nature are found established against respondent No. 5, only with a view to give him one opportunity, respondent No. 1 has allowed his revision. It is contended that such leniency shown is unwarranted and arbitrary. 3. Learned A.G.P. contends that being revisional authority, the respondent No. 1 is conferred with the discretion and in the use of that discretion, the fair price shop of respondent No. 5 has been restored. 4. Perusal of impugned order reveals that charge like selling wheat, rice and kerosene at excessive rate, of not mentioning the rate of sale on receipts issued and of not recording distribution of foodgrains under Antyodai Scheme are established against the respondent No. 5. The WP 4173/07 3 Hon'ble Minister has found nothing wrong in the orders passed by lower authorities cancelling his authorization. However, by honouring request made by respondent No. 5 and only with a view to give one opportunity, his fair price shop has been restored. Respondent No. 1 has imposed penalty of fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and also directed forfeiture of his entire security deposit. 5. When the charges of grave and serious nature are found established and the matter pertains to public distribution system, leniency shown is unacceptable. This Court has while issuing notice in the matter granted interim relief on 27.8.2007 and it continues to operate till today. Thus, fair price shop of respondent No. 5 has not been restored so far. 6. In these facts, I find impugned order unsustainable. The use of discretion by respondent No. 1 is not in accordance with law. The said order dated 28th May 2007 is accordingly quashed and set aside. Revision filed by respondent No. 5 before respondent No. 1 is dismissed. Rule is made absolute. No costs. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ssc/wp4173.07