(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11314 OF 2010 Vitthal Govindrao Surnar, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ambulga, Post : Martoli, Taluka : Degloor, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Hon'ble Minister of Civil Supply Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. District Supply Officer, Nanded, District : Nanded. 3. Dy. Commissioner (Supply), Division Aurangabad. 4. Eknathrao s/o. Santukrao Patil, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture and Fair Price Shop No.4 License holder, R/o. Ambulga, Post : Martoli, Taluka : Degloor, District : Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. M.L. Dharashive, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. M.L. Dharashive, for the petitioner; learned AGP Mrs. V.A. Shinde, for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Adv. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, for respondent no.4. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. On 22-6-2010, the respondent no.2 after noticing some irregularities, forfeited security deposit and also suspended license of fair price shop No.4. He also simultaneously ordered the alternate arrangement and simultaneously directed Tahsildar, Degloor, to conduct fresh inquiry and to submit report within 8 days. This order was (3) questioned by the respondent no.4 unsuccessfully before various authorities and ultimately in revision, the respondent no.1 has on 7th November 2010, set it aside. The orders of District Supply Officer dated 22-6-2010 are quashed and set aside. The forfeiture of security deposit is maintained and for lapses noticed during inspection, fine of Rs. 5,000/- has been inflicted upon respondent no.4. After payment of fine and security deposit, respondent no.4 is permitted to re-start his shop. 4. Adv. Mr. Dharashive, for the petitioner, contends that in view of serious lapses noticed, the shop could not have been restored and inquiry, as directed by the District Supply Officer on 22-6-2010, should have been permitted to be conducted. He has invited attention to order dated 22-6-2010 for the said purpose. 5. Learned AGP Mrs. V.A. Shinde, appearing for respondent no.2 / District Supply Officer, states that the inquiry was already ordered by the respondent no.2 on 22-6-2010. 6. Adv. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, for respondent no.4, has urged that the present petitioner is not a simple affected person. According to her, he is interested in alternate arrangement i.e. Shop No. 42 to which units of fair price shop of respondent no.4 (4) are attached. She contends that the petition is, therefore, not being prosecuted bona fidely and in public interest. She further points out that the present petitioner has also filed application for review before respondent no.1 and that application has not been withdrawn till date. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of petition. 7. Adv. Mr. Dharashive in reply states that the petitioner has already filed application for withdrawal of review petition, but on account of various administrative difficulties, the respondent no.1 could not pass appropriate orders on it till date. 8. Perusal of orders dated 22-6-2010 passed by respondent no.2 / District Supply Officer reveal some complaints against working of shop of respondent no.4. It also mentions that Tahsildar, Degloor, had submitted a report on 3-5-2010 to the office of District Supply Officer and on 26-5-2010, a show cause notice was, therefore, served upon respondent no.4. Vide his reply dated 14-6-2010, the respondent no.4 attempted to explain the situation but then, his explanation was not satisfactory and as per facts. 9. In the impugned order, Hon. Minister has noticed that while conducting inquiry against respondent no.4, proper (5) procedure was not followed and there is no adequate evidence to substantiate lapses or malpractices noticed and there was no misappropriation. It is also specifically noted that though prima facie there was some material against his shop, he was not given proper opportunity to defend himself. After this and after gathering that income through fair price shop was the only source of livelihood, impugned order has been passed. 10. Perusal of the impugned order dated 22-6-2010 itself reveals that it does not contain reasons to show how explanation submitted by the respodent no.4 is not satisfactory. The only words used are "his explanation is not satisfactory and is not as per facts". But then, these are inferences which need to be drawn and the inference, therefore, must have some basis in the facts on record. Those facts are not apparent in the said order dated 22-6-2010. 11. In this view of the matter, interest of justice will be met with, by modifying the order of Hon. Minister partly. 12. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The direction to conduct further inquiry by Tahsildar, issued by the District Supply Officer, is therefore, restored. The (6) Tahsildar, Degloor, shall complete the inquiry as per directions contained in the order dated 22-6-2010, as early as possible and in any case, by 31st March 2011, in accordance with law and shall submit his report to respondent no.2 / District Supply Officer. (ii) The respodnent no.2 / District Supply Officer shall then hear the petitioner and respondent no.4 in the light of that report and pass fresh orders in respect of fair price shop of respondent no.4, as early as possible and in any case by 30th April 2011. (iii) The respondent no.2 shall supply copy of report of Tahsildar to the petitioner and respondent no.4 before proceeding further with the inquiry. (iv) The impugned order dated 7th November 2010 is modified only to this extent. 13. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/11314wp