1 W.P. 3720/1991 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3720 OF 1991 Chandekasare Mahila Audhogic Mahila Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Chandekasare, through its Chairman Smt. Hirabai W/o Popat Hon Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculture and Household, R/o : Chandekasare, Tq. Kopargaonn, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Tahsildar, Kopargaon. 3. The Additional Commissioner Nasik Division, Nasik. 4. The Hon'ble Minister of State for Food & Civil Supplies, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Bombay - 32. 5. Shri. Shankarrao Kale Member of Parliament and Chairman of Kolpewadi Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Maryadit, Kolpewadi, Tq. Kopargaon, 2 W.P. 3720/1991 - ( J ) Dist. Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Mali, Advocate holding for Mr. S.B.Talekar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.N.Kendre, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent no. 5. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE: 16/07/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER - S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. The petitioner is a Co-operative society and holds a licence to run the kerosene retail shop. 2. The licence of the present petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 12/3/1991 passed by the Tahsildar, Kopargaon. The said order has been up-held by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik and the Minister, Food and Civil Supplies. The petitioner has assailed these orders in the present petition. 3. On or about 12/1/1991, some villagers had allegedly filed complaint against the petitioner - Society. Pursuant thereof, it is alleged that the Supply Inspector had inspected the premises of the petitioner and had found various deficiencies. Show cause notice was issued to 3 W.P. 3720/1991 - ( J ) the petitioner. The statements of 12 persons were also recorded and on consideration of the reply given by the petitioner, the Tahsildar came to the conclusion that the reply given by the petitioner is not satisfactory and cancelled the licence of the present petitioner. The Additional Commissioner also confirmed the said order by taking into consideration the statements of those witnesses. The Minister also on the basis of the said statements of the persons, had confirmed the order in Revision. 4. The present petition is admitted on 2/12/1991 and this Court by way of interim relief , had stayed the impugned orders. 5. Mr. Mali, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that while passing the impugned orders, the Tahsildar did not follow the elementary principles of natural justice in as much as the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses nor was given any personal hearing. According to him, the authorities before taking such a punitive action are duty bound to explain the petitioner the provisions which are allegedly flouted by the petitioner. In the present case, no such procedure has been followed. According to him, the whole proceedings have been initiated at the behest of respondent no. 5 who at the relevant time was the Member of Parliament. As he belongs to the rival group, these proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. 4 W.P. 3720/1991 - ( J ) 6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Govt. pleader submitted that the charges which were levelled against the petitioner have been proved. The law does not provide any such procedure, wherein opportunity to cross examine the witnesses can be claimed by the petitioner. After taking into consideration the evidence in totality, the impugned orders have been passed. According to the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader, there are concurrent findings and as such this Court may not interfere in its writ jurisdiction. 7. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, the learned counsel for respondent no. 5 has contended that as a diligent citizen, the respondent no. 5 has brought to the notice of the authorities the illegalities committed by the petitioner. Respondent no. 5 has only set the law into motion and thereafter was not concerned with the proceedings that had been taken up and decided by the authorities concerned. According to him, if the charges are perused and the letter which is filed by the petitioner, then the grievance which were made by respondent no. 5 is not included in the charges levelled against the petitioner. As such, it can not be said that the said proceedings have been initiated solely at the behest of present respondent no. 5. 8. On going through the proceedings, it nowhere transpires that the petitioner was even given the statements of the witnesses, which were recorded by the authorities. Even in the reply to the show 5 W.P. 3720/1991 - ( J ) cause notice, the petitioner had claimed that he had not received copies of the proceedings. The petitioner was not allowed to cross examine the said witnesses and even the personal hearing has not been given to the petitioner. When the petitioner is being mulct when the punitive action to the extent that the licence granted to it is sought to be cancelled, in such circumstances, the cardinal and elementary principles of natural justice mandates that the petitioner ought to have been given the copies of the proceedings, so also an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not been given such opportunity, the impugned orders can not with-stand the test of observance of principles of natural justice. Inter-alia, the impugned orders suffers from fundamental defect. Mr. Mali has relied on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Mahmood V/s State of Maharashtra & others reported in 2001 (Supp. 2) Bom. C.R. - 405, wherein this Court has observed thus : " The law expects a reasonable opportunity of hearing before cancellation or suspension of licence of such a party who must be informed the reasons, the lapses, and the misconduct levelled against him to attract the penalty of cancellation or suspension of licence. He must be told that he had contravened certain terms and conditions of 6 W.P. 3720/1991 - ( J ) the licence and he must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before imposing any such punishment. According to us, no such penal action can be taken in contravention of the provisions of the law as well as in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner is certainly entitled to get protection of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that the respondents as the State and its agency or instrumentality shall act reasonably and never arbitrarily maliciously or malafide ". 9. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the whole action is at the behest of respondent no. 5, the same is without any substance. Taking into account the charges framed, it can not be said that the said action is a result of the letter written by respondent no. 5. It can only be said that respondent no. 5 has done his duty as a diligent citizen and a responsible Member of Parliament. 10. In light of the fact that the principles of natural justice have not been followed and also in view of the fact that right since 1991, the petitioner is running said shop pursuant to the interim orders and has also filed an affidavit to that extent, the said affidavit is not controverted by the respondents, I am inclined to allow the petition. 11. In view of the aforesaid premise, the petition is allowed. 7 W.P. 3720/1991 - ( J ) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ' B '. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/WP 3720.91