( 1 ) wp789.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 789 OF 2006 1. Gangadhar s/o. Hari Dhutraj .. Petitioners Age. 46 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. At Pimpran, Post – Kawalgaon, Tal. Purna, Dist. Parbhani. 2. Kondiba s/o. Maroti Dewake Age. 50 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. At Pimpran, Post – Kawalgaon, Tal. Purna, Dist. Parbhani. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Minister for Food and Civil Supply, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Divisional Dy. Commissioner, Civil Supply, at Aurangabad. Division Aurangabad. 3. The District Supply Officer, Parbhani, Collector Office, Parbhani. 4. The Tahasildar, Purna, Taluka Purna, Dist. Parbhani. 5. Ramesh s/o. Nivruti Jamraj, Age. 30 years, Occ. Agri. & Fare Price Shop Holder, R/o. At Pimpran, Post. Kawalgaon, Tal. Purna, Dist. Parbhani. ( 2 ) wp789.06 Mr. S.B. Ghatol, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 10.01.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 28.12.2005, rendered by the Hon’ble Minister in the revision proceedings. By the impugned order, the Hon’ble Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, was pleased to partly allow the revision application and directed that in-spite of cancellation of the license of the fair price shop, respondent No.5 may be allowed to continue the business of fair price shop on condition that he shall pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- along with amount of difference of charges which were levied in excess of the fair prices, while selling the goods to the consumer in the village. 2. Respondent No.5 runs a fair price shop at village Pimpran (District – Parbhani) along with kerosene distribution agency. There were large number of complaints ( 3 ) wp789.06 against him. The petitioners are original complainants likewise other villagers. The complaints were ventilated on 07.06.2004, when the democracy day was observed and the villagers were allowed to ventilate their grievances. The District Supply Officer issued show cause notice to respondent No. 5. The District Supply Inspector was directed to make enquiry. An enquiry report dated 22.06.2004 was submitted to the District Supply Officer (D.S.O.). The enquiry held against respondent No.5 reveals that the misconduct was established. It was found that respondent No. 5 had charged excessively while selling wheat and rice through Public Distribution System (P.D.S.), by charging Rs. 6/- and Rs. 7/- respectively, over and above the fair price fixed by the Government. He had also charged more prices while selling the grains to the B.P.L. card holders. It was also found that he was not maintaining the receipt books, stock register and had committed defaults in recording relevant entries in the concerned register. He had also sold kerosene at excessive rate of Rs. 12/-, Rs. 14/- and Rs. 15/- over and above the rate fixed by the Government. The D.S.O. called for explanation on the enquiry report. The ( 4 ) wp789.06 explanation submitted by respondent No. 5 was found to be dis-satisfactory. The D.S.O., therefore, directed cancellation of the license of the fair price shop as well as license for vending of kerosene. Simultaneously, the security deposit of respondent No.5 was also directed to be seized and credited to the Government account. Respondent No.5 preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Dy. Commissioner (Supply). After dismissal of the appeal No. 265 of 2004, respondent No. 5 preferred revision application. The revision application is partly allowed vide the impugned order. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ghatol Patil for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. Mr. Patil for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None appeared for the respondent No.5. 4. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Hon’ble Minister rendered the impugned order on basis of surmises. It is observed that on the receipts issued by respondent No.5, the rates of the commodities were properly indicated but figures were not properly written and ( 5 ) wp789.06 therefore, there was error in holding that the goods were sold at excessive rates. It is observed by the Hon’ble Minister that card holders gave statements against respondent No.5, which show that he had charged Rs. 1/- or Rs. 2/- excessively. The Hon’ble Minister came to the conclusion that respondent No.5, therefore, was guilty of committing error. In-fact, what the Hon’ble Minister termed as “error” is the misconduct and act of exploitation of the consumers. Once it is found that respondent No. 5 malafidely charged excessive amount for the grains sold through P.D.S. as well as for the kerosene sold through his agency, it cannot be regarded as an error which could be condoned. The Hon’ble Minister committed patent error while unnecessarily causing interference in the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the D.S.O. and the Additional Commissioner (Supplies). The impugned order is, therefore, arbitrary and patently erroneous. 5. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that if the P.D.S. is not being properly implemented, the consumers in the rural area are likely to be exploited at the hands of ( 6 ) wp789.06 greedy traders. The present case is one of such examples. The impugned order suffers from vice of arbitrariness and illegality, in as much as the Hon’ble Minister exceeded limits of revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and that of the D.S.O. and the Additional Commissioner (Supply) are restored. 7. Rule made absolute accordingly. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2011/JAN11/wp789.06