1 WP 6164........2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6164 OF 2011 Laxman S/o Bhagoji Kodewad Age : 33 Years, Occ. : Agriculture, R/o : Wanjarwadi, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. : Nanded. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Minister Food & Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Dy. Commissioner ( Supply ) Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Additional Collector, Nanded. 4. The District Supply Officer, Nanded. 5. The Tahsildar Naigaon, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. : Nanded. 2 WP 6164........2011 - [ J ] 6. Ramrao S/o Shamrao Kadam Age : 62 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Vanjarwadi, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. : Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P.Phatake, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. A.N.Nagargoje, Advocate for Resp. No. 6. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6480 OF 2011 Ramrao S/o Shamrao Kadam Age : 65 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Vanjarwadi, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. : Nanded. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The Tahsildar Naigaon, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. : Nanded. 2. The District Supply Officer, Nanded. 3. The Additional Collector, Nanded. 3 WP 6164........2011 - [ J ] 4. The Dy. Commissioner ( Supply ) Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 5. The Hon’ble Minister Food Grain Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 6. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Food Grain Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.N.Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P.Phatake, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29/08/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4 WP 6164........2011 - [ J ] 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions have impugned the Order dated 29/07/2011 passed by the Hon’ble Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, thereby partly allowing the Revision filed by the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 6480 of 2011. 4. The licence of the petitioners in respect of fair price shop was cancelled. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred Revision before the Dy. Commissioner, who also dismissed the same. The petitioners thereafter preferred Revision before the Hon’ble Minister, who partly allowed the Revision vide the impugned order. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, it is manifest that the Hon’ble Minister has not given reasons for partly allowing the Revision. The Hon’ble Minister has not come to any definite conclusion. The Hon’ble Minister while deciding the Revision is expected to give reasons in favour of the acceptance of the case of 5 WP 6164........2011 - [ J ] the revision petitioner or the rejection thereof. The order does not depict that evidence is considered while passing the impugned order and whether the said evidence was reliable or not. 7. Reasons are the life line of any quasi judicial order. They depict the application of mind of the authority passing the said order. In the present case, as no definite conclusion has been arrived at by the Hon’ble Minister nor there is a discussion about the evidence on record and whether the said evidence is accepted or not by the Hon’ble Minister, as such the order can not be sustained. 8. In light of the above, I quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29/07/2011 passed by the Hon’ble Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection and relegate the parties to the Hon’ble Minister, who shall decide the Revision afresh. The parties shall appear before the Hon’ble Minister on 19/09/2011. The Hon’ble Minister shall make endeavour to decide the said Revision as expeditiously as possible and without being influenced by any earlier order and on its own merits. The petitioner can make such application as is permissible in law before 6 WP 6164........2011 - [ J ] the Hon’ble Minister, who shall consider the said application on its own merits. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6164......2011 - [ J ]