1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3007 OF 2009 Murlidhar Gopinath Bhadule ... Petitioner V/s. The Hon’ble Minister for Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Maharashtra State & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Dilip Bodake for the Petitioner. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP, for Respondent-State. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 19TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Authority, i.e. The Hon’ble Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, in a Revision Application filed by him against the order of the District Supply Officer. The petitioner is conducting a business and has been issued a kerosene license in the name of Dhanlaxmi Trading Company, Nimsod. A show cause notice was issued to him on 17th October, 2006 after his shop was inspected by the Tahsildar, Khatav. Several charges were levied against the 2 petitioner including the charge that at Popalkarwadi at Kamathi, he was found to possess kerosene in excess of the quota allotted to him to the tune of 3125 liters. This allegation against him was considered by the District Supply Officer and was found to be a minor misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The District Supply Officer had in fact exonerated the petitioner in respect of most of the other charges. The petitioner preferred a Revision Application which was rejected by respondent No.1. It was held that the petitioner had been found to possess 200 liters kerosene while selling it in the open market and that he was adulterating the kerosene. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent has considered those charges in respect of which he was exonerated while dealing with the Revision Application. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that it was not open for the Revisional Authority to reopen the charges which had been dropped by the District Supply Officer. Since the Revision was only in respect of charge No.5, the 3 respondent No.1 could have considered the same and not the other charges contained in the show cause notice according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 3. An affidavit has been filed in reply to the Petition by the District Supply Officer, in paragraph No.6 of which it is stated that the petitioner was found storing excess amount of kerosene and that he had some chemical powder which allegedly was used for converting blue kerosene into white, the blue kerosene being of prime quality. 4. A perusal of the order of the District Supply Officer indicates that he has dealt with only three charges in the operative part of his order, whereas he has discussed all the seven charges and the reply of the petitioner in the earlier part of the order. He has then concluded that charge No.4 with respect to the petitioner not having the latest list of the card holders has not been established. As regards charge No.5, he has found that the petitioner is guilty. As regards 4 charge No.5, with respect to the petitioner not distributing kerosene to the card holders in equal quantity, he has found that the petitioner is guilty of the same. 5. The petitioner, therefore, had filed the revision application only with respect to Clause 5, probably mistakenly. However, the Revisional Authority, without considering the discrepancy in the order of the District Supply Officer, has considered all the charges leveled against the petitioner and has found the petitioner guilty. In my opinion, the order of the Revisional Authority cannot be sustained. The revision application filed by the petitioner only deals with Charge No.5 since in the operative part of the order the District Supply Officer had concluded that the petitioner was guilty of that charge only. 6. The order of the Revisional Authority is, therefore, set aside. 5 7. The order of the District Supply Officer is also set aside in view of the fact that there are discrepancies contained in the order with respect to the final conclusion drawn by him in the operative part of the order and the discussion in the earlier part of the order. 8. In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.3 i.e. The District Supply Officer to give a hearing to the petitioner, based on the show cause notice issued to him on 21.11.2006. The District Supply Officer shall intimate the petitioner the date of hearing well in advance. 9. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. ......