SSK/921 1 WP.10565.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10565 OF 2009 Shri Umakant Jaisawal ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Venegavkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S. A. Sawant, Avocate for the respondent no.4. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 26th APRIL, 2011. P.C.: The allotment of the ration shop was made in favour of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent on 11th June, 2007. The respondent no.4 along with others challenged this allotment by filing revision application before the respondent no.3. The said revision was dismissed by Speaking Order passed on 20th September, 2007. The 4th respondent, thereafter, filed a review application and this review application is allowed by the respondent no.3 by the impugned order which is being challenged in the present petition. SSK/921 2 WP.10565.09 2. Mr. Venegavkar, learned counsel, submits that the respondent no.3 exercised his powers and reviewed the earlier order passed on 20th September, 2007 without their being case made out by respondent no.4. After perusing the impugned order, I do not find any discussion about the grounds for review. 3. Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, however, submits that subsequent to the impugned order, on 9th March, 2010 a FIR is lodged against the petitioner for contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Maharashtra Rationing Order 1966 and Bombay Rationing Area Schedule Commodity Regulation of Distribution 1986. 4. In the above circumstances, Mr. Sawant, learned counsel agreed for setting aside the impugned order, however, submits that the petitioner may be proceeded with independently for breach of the above order under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 5. Mr. Venegavkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patne, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3 have no objection if the SSK/921 3 WP.10565.09 petition is disposed of in the above terms. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, by passing the following order: 1. The impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 on 21st August, 2009 is quashed and set-aside. 2. The respondent no.2 is at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioner in view of the FIR mentioned above. (RANJIT MORE, J.)