1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1088 of 2006 Muktaram s/o Shahadeo Mate, Age 47 years, Occupation: Business, r/o Loni (Shahajanpur), Tq. & Dist. Beed. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. the State of Maharashtra, (Through Dist. Supply Officer, at Tq. Dist. Beed). 2. Tukaram s/o Dnyanoba Mate, Age Major, Occupation: Agriculture, r/o Loni (Shahajanpur) Tq & Dist. Beed. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Patil, learned A.G.P. for respondent State. Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni, Adv., for respondent No.2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 29/10/2010 *** 2 COURT'S ORDER: 1. Rule was issued on 8.6.2006, without any interim relief in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was carrying business activities of fair price licence/shop at village Loni Shahajanpur, dist. Beed. There were two allegations against him. In the inspection carried by the learned Tehsildar, it was noticed that in 36 ration cards, entries of supply of food-grains were not incorporated, giving an impression that card holders did not receive such food-grains from the shop of the petitioner. The second grievance is, for the month of Feb/March, 2003, under the Scheme to supply rice to the pupils studying in Primary School at Loni, weighing 636 kg, though was lifted by the petitioner, however, it was not supplied till the Sarpanch of Loni made a report dt.7.7.2003. 2. The contention of the petitioner is, for the above incident, two different orders dt. 25.9.2003 and 8.7.2003 ( page Nos. 11 and 12 respectively) are passed by the learned District Supply Officer, Beed. The other grievance is, no hearing was given while terminating his licence. The learned Minister being under influence of respondent no.2 Tukaram, who is politically influential person, passed impugned order. 3 3. The allotment of licence in favour of respondent no.2 is upto Dec.,2012. The Additional Commissioner, while setting aside the order of the learned District Supply Officer dt. 25.9.2003 found that no hearing was given to the petitioner while the impugned order dt.25.9.2003 are recorded by the learned District Supply Officer. 4. The order dt.25.9.2003 and 8.7.2003, deal with two situations; the former restricts to non entry in 36 cards of the village while later order dt.25.9.2003 illustrate, in addition, not supplying of rice 636 kgs, lifted in the month of Feb.,2003 and for March, 2003, till it was so complained in July, 2003. Consequently, the submission of the learned Counsel that for one incident two orders are passed is misplaced. 5. The second aspect that requires attention is, while passing the order dt. 25.9.2003, the learned Sub Divisional Officer has indicated that he has verified the record and learned Tehsildar had even called upon the petitioner to attend but he did not come, there was no proof to this effect before the learned District Supply Officer. 6. The learned Additional Commissioner (Supply) found that the learned District Supply 4 Officer having received any complaint on 8.7.2003 and passed the order on the same date, should have caused inquiry in the matter of giving opportunity to the petitioner. The recitals in the order illustrated that no proper hearing was given to the petitioner and, resultantly, he, as stated above, cancelled the order of the learned District Supply Officer. The learned Minister did not advert to this aspect of the matter dt. 16.12.2003 of learned Additional Commissioner ( Supply). 7. No explanation was called from petitioner for irregularities The petitioner had explanation to offer for these two irregularities which has gone un-attended. High handed action and order under political clout calls for interference. In the result, the order of the of District Supply Officer dt.25.9.2003 and learned Minister are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned District Supply Officer, Beed, to decide the allegations on its own merits, giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. The learned District Supply Officer will also supply copies of grievance of 36 card holders or the relevant record collected by the Tehsildar at the material time. The inquiry is 5 to be conducted within six months from communication. Writ Petition allowed to the extent as above. No opinion expressed on petitioner's merit of licence. Rule is made absolute in above terms. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/1088-06