1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 387 OF 1998 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. S.S.Choudhari, Advocate holding for Mr. A.N.Sabnis,Advocate holding for Mr. J.R.Shah, Advocate for Resp. No. 6. Mr. N.B.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. ............................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 03/08/2010 PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20/12/1997, thereby cancelling allotment of the fair price shop of the petitioner. 2. It appears that respondent no. 6 was running fair price shop at village Gaurgaon, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. It was noticed that respondent no. 6 had indulged in not giving the goods to the card holders and also maintaining the fabricated record. As such 2 vide Order dated 30/12/1995 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhoom, the licence in favour of respondent no. 6 came to be cancelled. Being aggrieved thereby, respondent no. 6 had preferred Revision before the Dy. Collector ( Supply ). The said Revision was also dismissed by the said authority. After the dismissal of the Revision, the respondent - Sub Divisional Officer after following due process of law, allotted the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner. In the mean time, respondent no. 6 had preferred second Revision before the State of Maharashtra. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was not made party to the said Revision. The said Revision was partly allowed vide Order dated 21/10/1997 thereby setting aside the penalty of cancellation of fair price shop and refusing the fore-feature of deposit. Subsequent to the order passed dated 21/10/1997, the impugned order came to be passed on 20/12/1997. 3. The affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Sub Divisional Officer. In the affidavit, he submits that the impugned order came to be passed as a consequence of the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. From the order of the Hon'ble Minister, it is clear that though the Hon'ble Minister has found some 3 substance in the allegations against respondent no. 6, he opined that the order of cancellation of penalty was too harsh and, therefore, has refused the penalty. It is also clear that though the petitioner was allotted the fair price shop, he was not impleaded as party respondent. It can thus be seen that having no fault on the part of the petitioner, the fair price shop which was allotted to him in accordance with law, came to be cancelled. 4. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. The same is, therefore, quashed and set aside. 5. The respondent - authority shall issue necessary permission / licence to the petitioner within a period of one month from today. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/ WP 387.98