1 wp9089.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9089 OF 2010 Babasaheb Kisan Rathod Age : 40 years, Occ : Agril, R/o village Borgaon Tanda, Tq. Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna. ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Hon'ble Minister (Food), Civil Supply and Consumer, Protection. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, At Aurangabad. 3. The District Supply Officer, Jalna Tq. & Dist. Jalna. 4. Achyut S/o Pikan Rathod Age : 50 years, Occ : Agril., and to run a Fair Price Shop, R/o Borgaon Tanda, Tq. Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no.4. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 21st March, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent. 2 wp9089.10 2. Heard Advocate Mr. Chincholkar for petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Advocate Mrs. Kulkarni for respondent no.4. 3. Contention of Advocate Mr. Chincholkar for petitioner is that though the petitioner was party before the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner in Revision, before the respondent no.1 the petitioner was not joined as party and the Hon'ble Minister has overlooking seriousness of charges/misconduct and also absence of petitioner before it, by impugned order dated 28.08.2010 restored the fair price shop of respondent no.4. According to him, the earlier two concurrent orders could not have been set aside by revisional authority. He wants to point out this Court graveness and seriousness of the lapses in running of fair price shop and claims that as the petitioner is card holder of shop of respondent no.4, he has necessary locus in the matter. 4. Advocate Mrs. Kulkarni for respondent no.4 points out that the present petitioner has got no locus to approach this Court. According to her, he was also not party in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner had closed the appeal for orders on 9th March, 2010 and petitioner filed caveat thereafter i.e. on 12th March, 2010. The contention is that the respondent no.2 has only added the name of petitioner in the array of parties and that order no where discloses that the petitioner was heard while deciding the appeal. 5. On merits, the learned Counsel states that alleged lapse noticed is only lifting of excess quota. The lapse is not of not distributing the quota so lifted to cardholders or then of 3 wp9089.10 misappropriation. She points out that necessary price for that quota have been received by the State Government and hence there is no misconduct. Looking to this nature of charge and this position, according to her the present petitioner has no locus and the Petition is liable to be rejected. She points out that the respondent no.4 is running shop after the impugned order and till date. 6. Learned A.G.P. after verification of records states that the name of petitioner is found added in array of parties in final order passed by the respondent no.2. However, there is no other document on record to show that the respondent no.2 had heard the present petitioner before passing the order. 7. It is clear that as petitioner was shown as party in appeal, he ought to have been added in Revision also. In this situation, the interest of justice will be met with by directing the Hon'ble Minister to reconsider the controversy. As the name of petitioner figured in final order passed by the respondent no.2, the respondent no.1 ought to have taken its due cognizance. Whether, the petitioner has got any locus or status in the matter, whether he has filed any caveat before the respondent no.1 are disputed questions which can be decided by respondent no.1 after hearing the petitioner and the respondent no.4. 8. In the present state of affairs, I find that the interest of justice can be met by quashing and setting aside clause 4 of the operative part of the order dated 28th August, 2010. Rest of the order is maintained as it is. However, this shall not in any way disturb the working and running of fair price shop of the respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 shall be permitted to operate his fair price shop as 4 wp9089.10 on today during the pendency of Revision before the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 shall hear the parties and shall pass the order on the said Revision on permission to run the shop as early as possible and in any case within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to it. All the objections raised by learned Counsel for respondent no.4 about the status and locus of petitioner are kept open and can be looked into by the respondent no.1. Further running of his shop by respondent no.4 shall be as per final orders in the revision. 9. Writ Petition is thus allowed by making Rule absolute accordingly. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp9089.10