( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 155 OF 2006 Ravindra s/o Raosaheb Gaikwad @ Deshmukh, R/o Dahigaon (Bolka), Tq. Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Minister for Food and Civil Supply, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Deuty Commissioner (Supply), Nasik Division, Nasik. 3. The District Supply Officer, Ahmednagar. 4. Girijamata Magasvargeey Mahila Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Subhash Nagar, Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.B. Talekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korade, AGP for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for the respondent No. 4. …. [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 23rd June, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges orders rendered by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 whereby license to run a fair price shop was granted in favour of the respondent No.4, simultaneously rejecting his claim to obtain such a ( 2 ) license. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that a fair price shop was to be allotted to eligible person/Sanstha (Institution) at village Dahigaon and for such purpose, applications were called from eligible persons/Institutions/Cooperative Societies. There were eleven (11) applicants who sought license to run the fair price shop. The District Supply Officer considered the report of the Supply Inspector. The priorities in accordance with the Govt. Resolution dated 14th March, 2002 and the earlier resolutions, including Govt. Resolution dated 6th March, 2002 were considered. The District Supply Officer came to the conclusion that the name of the petitioner was at serial No. 8 in the priority list whereas the respondent No. 4 was at serial No. 4. Considering the positions of the parties in the priority list and the relevant documents, the respondent No. 4 was held eligible for grant of the license to run the fair price shop. The District Supply Officer held that though name of the petitioner was recommended by the Gram Sabha in accordance with the resolution dated 24th August, 2004, yet, the priority of the respondent No. 4 was higher and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner could not be considered ( 3 ) whereas that of the respondent No. 4 could be approved. Accordingly, the license was issued in name of the respondent No.4. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nasik Division. The petitioner thereafter preferred revision application which was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 i.e. the Hon'ble Minister for Food and Civil Supplies. The petitioner, therefore, challenges all the three (3) orders rendered by the respondents No. 3, 2 and 1, respectively, in succession, one after another. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 4. Before the material pleadings are considered, it is useful to briefly refer to the scheme for distribution of the licenses to the eligible persons/Institutions/Cooperative Societies to run the fair price shops. The Government of Maharashtra issued a resolution dated 20th March, 1999 (Exh-R2) in order to streamline the procedure for distribution of the licenses for fair price shops. The scheme would show that the topmost priority was given to unemployed educated youths and thereafter, the other claims were to be considered. The ( 4 ) scheme provides for 30 per cent reservation for the cooperative societies of women. The other conditions purport to show that the person or Institution/Cooperative Society must be found financially viable to run the fair price shop. There are two (2) broad categories in which the priorities are fixed. The first category shown by letter “A” is not relevant for the present purposes. The next category shown as “B” is relevant for the purpose of present petition. Amongst the priorities in the category “B”, the clause of “educated unemployed persons” is at serial No. 1. The clause of “Women's Consumer Cooperative Societies” is at serial No. 2 and the clause of “Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Societies” is at serial No. 4. The respondent No. 4 is not, admittedly, a Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society as such. 5. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken a consistent view that the respondent No. 4 could claim priority being at serial No. 4. The priority at serial No. 4 is given to the village level Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited. Thus, to claim priority at serial No.4, the cooperative society must be a society functioning on village level and secondly, it must be a Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited i.e. a multipurpose society. The respondent No. 4 is ( 5 ) not the multipurpose society though it is functioning on village level. This aspect is completely overlooked by the respondents No.1 to 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 would submit that the respondent No.4 is a Women's Consumer Cooperative Society, being a society which has certain aims and objects including the activities to run a fair price shop. He would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the license to run the fair price shop in as much as he is ineligible due to his being a beneficiary of another scheme. He contended that the petitioner was granted license of kerosene vending and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed as an unemployed educated person. 6. By Government Resolution dated 8th September, 2003, the procedure to allot fair price shops was modified. The terms of the Government Resolution would show that the applications received upto 1st April, 2002 were directed to be sent to the Gram Sabha for recommendation. It is important to note that in accordance with Government Resolution dated 6th March, 2002, the priorities were fixed and thereafter, by Government Resolution dated 14th March, 2002, the procedure was envisaged. The Government Resolution dated 14th March, 2002 clearly indicates that the applicants who were recommended by ( 6 ) the Gram Sabha shall be eligible and to whom the license to run the fair price shop was to be granted. The Gram Sabha was required to recommend the names of eligible persons. It is amply clear, therefore, that the recommendation of the Gram Sabha was one of the conditions to consider eligibility of a candidate or Institution to receive the license to run a fair price shop. In the present case, name of the respondent No. 4 was never recommended by the Gram Sabha. The respondents No. 1 to 3 never paid any attention to this deficiency regarding the claim of the respondent No.4. There was no reason to give a go-bye to such requirement of recommendation by the Gram Sabha. Nor the impugned orders indicate any substantial reason ascribed by the authorities to overlook the recommendation of the Gram Sabha. The Gram Sabha, in fact, recommended the name of the petitioner. The scheme of the Government shows that the competent authority was required to specify and explain in the order as to why the recommendation of the Gram Sabha was ignored or set aside, while granting the license of the fair price shop. The respondent No. 3 seems to have considered claim of the respondent No. 4 on the ground that name of the respondent No. 3 appears at serial No. 4 in the list of priorities. This is factually incorrect. As stated before, the respondent No. 4 is not a multipurpose ( 7 ) cooperative society. 7. Though it is contended that the petitioner was ineligible to claim the license to run the fair price shop for the reason that he had availed the benefit of Government's scheme and was granted license for kerosene vending, yet, the basic order issued by the respondent No. 4 does not show that claim of the petitioner was rejected on such a ground. The respondent No. 3 held that name of the petitioner was at serial No. 8 in the list of priority. This is incorrect and improper observation having regard to the priority list enumerated in the Government Resolutions dated 6th March, 2002 and 20th March, 1999. The orders impugned do not reflect application of judicial mind as is required from a quasi- judicial authority. 8. Considering the scheme prepared for distribution of the licenses for running of fair price shop, it is amply clear that the claim of an educated unemployed person is of highest priority. The District Supply Officer appears to have placed the petitioner at serial No. 8 in the list of priority. The petitioner could not be pushed to serial No. 8 in the priority list when his application itself showed that he claimed ( 8 ) benefit of the scheme as unemployed educated person. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the District Supply Officer i.e. the respondent No. 4 without considering the entitlement. It is observed by the District Supply Officer in the impugned order dated 29th January, 2005 (Exh-C to the petition) that name of the petitioner was recommended by the Gram Sabha. It is also observed that as per the priority list, the position of the petitioner was over and above that of the respondent No. 4. If that is so, one does not get any peculiar reasons as to why the claim of the petitioner was sidetracked. The respondent No. 3 – District Supply Officer refers to the Government Resolution dated 8th September, 2003 and again observed that the priority number of the petitioner was 8 whereas the respondent No. 4 was at serial No. 4. So, the District Supply Officer initially considered the petitioner at priority position over and above the respondent No.. 4 in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 14th March, 2002, but changed such priority positions in pursuance to the Government Resolution dated 8th September, 2003. Perusal of both these Government Resolutions go to show that the observations of the respondent No. 3 are factually incorrect. The Government Resolution dated 8th September, 2003 is in continuation of the earlier Government Resolution dated ( 9 ) 14th March, 2002. The Government Resolution dated 8th September, 2003 (Exh-R1 to the petition) would show that the difficulties in implementing the scheme were considered and, therefore, modifications were made. The said Government Resolution does not re-fix the seniority position. The entire record shows that no good reasons were ascribed for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 9. It is argued by learned counsel Mr. Hon that the petitioner is ineligible to claim benefit of the Government Resolutions and the scheme because he cannot be termed as an unemployed educated person. It is argued that the petitioner received benefit of another Government schemes and was granted license to sell kerosene. It is trued that in view of the Government Resolution dated 20th March, 1999, the unemployed educated person must not have obtained benefit of any other scheme. It appears from copy of communication dated 9th January, 2006 (Exh-R3 to the petition) that in January, 2006, the a kerosene quota was allotted to the petitioner. This communication, therefore, does not show since when the license as a retailer for kerosene vending was issued in his favour. Mr. Hon would submit that such license was granted in favour of the petitioner in the yar 1985 and he was running such ( 10 ) retail business of kerosene vending. However, it is pertinent to notice that all the three (3) authorities did not reject claim of the petitioner for such a reason. There is no finding that the petitioner was ineligible on account of his being a retailer for kerosene vending as on date of consideration of his application for the grant of license to run the fair price shop. The impugned orders do not show that claim of the petitioner was rejected on such a ground, namely, that he is beneficiary of another scheme pertaining to distribution of the kerosene license or like benefit available to educated unemployed persons. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No. 4 is not a Consumer Society as such and it being Industrial Cooperative Society of Women, the claim ought not to have been considered. He would further submit that the area of operation of the respondent No. 4 is restricted to Kopargaon and, therefore, the respondent No. 4 is ineligible to run the fair price shop at village Dahigaon (Bk.). I do not find it necessary to go into such questions. In the present case, the only material question is whether the priority list is duly considered by the competent authorities or that the license is granted in violation of the provisions ( 11 ) of the relevant scheme envisaged under various Government Resolutions. It need not be reiterated that the respondents No. 1 to 3 did not follow the procedure enumerated under the various Government Resolutions while distributing the license of the fair price shops in favour of the respondent No. 4. There was no tangible reason ascribed while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The impugned orders are, therefore, quite perverse and arbitrary. 11. Taking overall view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. I find that the petitioner is eligible to claim license to run the fair price shop and that it was erroneously granted in favour of the respondent No. 4. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The respondent No. 3 is directed to issue license of the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner and if so required, by cancelling all other licenses granted to him including the license as a retailer for kerosene vending. The respondent No. 3 shall proceed to cancel the license granted in favour of the respondent No. 4 and thereafter, to take appropriate action after observing necessary priorities of cancelling other licenses granted to ( 12 ) the petitioner or his family members, and to issue the license of the fair price shop in his favour within period of two (2) months hereafter. The respondent No. 4 may continue to run the fair price shop for the said period of two (2) months. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 13. The learned A.G.P. to communicate this order to the concerned authorities and may act on copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp155-06