:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1111 OF 2008 Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Daud ... Petitioners Versus The Handloom Owners Co-op Association and anr. ....Respondents ====== Mr.M.M.Sathaye, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Bubna Adv. for respondent no.1. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent no.2. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 4TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The petitioner is the Original Plaintiff and he has challenged an order of the Trial Court, so also, the lower Appellate Court at an inter-locutory stage. 2. The suit was filed on the basis that there is an Agreement dated 3th July, 1990 whereunder the petitioner and Respondent no.1 have arrived at some terms to run a Ration Shop/Fair price Shop No.53. The :2: :2: :2: First Respondent is a Society and the petitioner-plaintiff in the Suit claims that the said Society had handed over the Shop to him on a condition that the Agreement would be effective for a period prescribed therein, so also on acceptance of a deposit amount and compensation per month. The petitioner-plaintiff claims that this is an conducting Agreement whereas the Respondent no.1/Original Defendant no.1 denied this fact. The petitioner is unsuccessful in getting an Interim Injunction from the Trial Court and that order is confirmed in the lower Appellate Court. 2. When this matter was placed before me, I had directed Mr.Patne, Learned AGP to take instructions from Respondent no.2. The Food Distribution Officer, Malegaon has deputed an Officer alongwith the record. The petition discloses sorry state of Affairs as far as Public Distribution System (PDS). The same is introduced for fulfilling the Constitutional Goal and more particularly the duty to provide Essential Commodities to all those needy and below poverty line. The Authorities better realise that they are complying :3: :3: :3: with Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India. They are supposed to strictly implement the Schemes framed foir fulfilling their obligations. They ought not permit Dealers and License Holders to transfer Fair Price Authorisations or part with possession of the Shops without their Approval. In this case, Petitioner claims to be running the Shop under a Conducting Agreement dated 3rd July, 1990, whereas, Respondent No.1 claims to be the Authorised Licence Holder. Respondent No.1 asserts that the Petitioner is a Servant and his possession is in that capacity. Whether the Authorties are aware of this Arrangement or not is the Question. 3. After the matter was heard for some time, I suggested to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that instead of Case dragging in a Civil court, interest of justice would be subserved if the Collector, District-Nashik conducts an Inquiry into the matter and passes appropriate orders with regard to Fair Price Shop no.53. At such an inquiry, both the petitioner and the First Respondent can remain present and substantiate their pleas. The Collector after :4: :4: :4: hearing both of them, will pass such orders as are permissible in law. Needless to state, that it is for the Collector to decide the fate of the License and whether the allotment with regard to the subject Fair Price Shop should be continued or appropriate steps should be taken in that behalf. 4. Both sides have agreed to appear before the Collector, but the First Respondent’s submission is that till the Collector concludes the inquiry, the petitioner should not be allowed to run the Ration Shop/Fair Price Shop. If he has lost in both courts and has not got an injunction, then, it was evident that he is not running the Shop on his own but as a Servant of the First Respondent. In my view, the issuance of Licence or Authorisation and allotment of Fair Prince Shop is for making essential commodities available to the public at large. There are Card Holders’ benefit and it is for enabling them to buy Foodgrains etc. that the facility is provided by the State. In other words, the Card Holders can go to a nearby Ration/Fair Price Shop and get their daily needs. All such arrangements are made for Card Holders :5: :5: :5: and not for the benefit of either the Respondent No.1-Society or any Individual. None can claim that such licenses are their properties. In such circumstances, whatever arrangement has been continuing till date, can continue only for the benefit of the Card Holders. The same shall continue but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the inquiry by the Collector. The Collector shall not be influenced by any ad-hoc arrangements but must independently hold an Inquiry into the granting of license and the permission/facility granted allegedly by the First Respondent to the Petitioner. The Collector should pass appropriate orders fixing the responsibility, in case he is satisfied that there are lapses committed by the Officials themselves. Both sides to appear before the Collector on 17.03.2008 and he shall endeavour and complete the Inquiry on/or before 15.5.2008. Till the Collector completes the Inquiry as directed, the existing arrangement with regard to the distribution of the Essential Commodities to continue. The Civil Suit is allowed to be withdrawn as prayed. Petition disposed off in above terms. No costs. :6: :6: :6: ********