1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 484 OF 2010 Dhyaneshwar Mahadeo Ambure ... APELLANT. -VERSUS - The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS. .... Mr. P.S. Patil Advocate for the Petitioner. .... CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 04 th OCTOBER, 2010. COURT'S ORDER : Appellant has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 27.8.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4114 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition. 2. In support of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge ought to have found fault with the order made by the Hon'ble Minister in revision that was filed at the instance of the complainant with mala fide intention in the matter of cancellation of authorisation of fair price shop of the appellant. According 2 to him, the subordinate officer to the Government had found that none of the charges levelled against the appellant were serious and therefore there was no need for the Hon'ble Minister in the light of the Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991 to interfere in the matter. The learned counsel then contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. 3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order made by the learned Single Judge so also the charges proved against the appellant. We find that there is a serious charge against the appellant regarding storage of wheat and rice to be sold under public distribution system, that too under B.P.L scheme of the Government. It is seen that in inspection it was found that the balance of these food articles at the end of the month was always above 30 kgs. and to be precise – 30 kgs ., 32kgs., 45 kgs. and lastly 121 kgs. Thus, it clearly appears that the appellant was in the habit of retaining such a huge quantity of food articles to be sold in B.P.L category with a view to sell the same in the open market at a very high price. Thus, on facts we find that the said charge is very serious and no interference in the present appeal is called for. In the result, letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE JUDGE