(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1804 OF 2011 1. Shri Deelip Nahaanji Thail, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 2. Shri Ramchandra Rahucha Gawali, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. 3. Shri Santya Dage Thakare, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. 4. Shri Raju Mangya Chaudhary \ Konkani, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. 5. Shri Santosh Ramlal Thakare, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. 6. Shri Bharat Santya Thakare, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. 7. Shri Ramlal Chunilal Gaikwad, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. All R/o. Pangan, Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule. .. Petitioners. (2) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (Through Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Department), Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nasik Division, Nasik. 3. The District Supply Officer, Dhule. 4. Shri Pandav Chindha Pawar, Age : Major, Occupation : Fair Price Shop owner, R/o. Pangan (Kolapada), Post : Navapada, Fair Price Shop No.156, Taluka : Sakri, Dist. Dhule. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Shrikant S. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.P. Raje, Advocate, for respondent no.4 / caveator. ........................ (3) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2ND MAY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.S. Patil, for the petitioners; learned AGP Mrs. V.A. Shinde, for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Adv. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, holding for Adv. Mr. V.P. Raje, for respondent no.4 / caveator. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent. 3. The petitioners have challenged order dated 15-10-2010, passed by respondent no.1 / Hon. Minister of State for Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai, in Revision Application outward No. 1410/345/23, preferred by respondent no.4. 4. After hearing respective Counsel, it is seen that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing by Hon. Minister when impugned order dated 15th October 2010 came to be passed. (4) 5. Adv. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, appearing for respondent no.4, has placed reliance upon order dated 8th April 2011 in Writ Petition No. 7689/2010 and the judgment dated 7th June 2001, in Writ Petition No. 139/2000, to urge that the petitioners have no locus to file this petition. He further states that petitioners were also not parties before the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies or then before District Supply Officer and hence, there was no occasion for Hon. Minister to hear them. 6. Learned AGP Mrs. V.A. Shinde, appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, is also supporting the impugned order. 7. Adv. Mr. S.S. Patil, appearing for the petitioner, has however, urged that though in the petition there is no express statement that petitioners are card holders and are receiving the ration through shop of respondent no.4, factually the petitioners are card holders and if time is given, petitioners can produce that material. He contends that loosely the word "villagers" has been used in the petition and most of the villagers are receiving their food grains from the said shop. He invites attention to resolution passed by the Grampanchayat against shop of respondent no.4. 8. Adv. Mr. Patil further contends that a truck carrying (5) food grains for black market was caught by the petitioners and thereafter the authorities have taken action against fair price shop of respondent no.4. He invites attention to various representations to urge that since names of these petitioners appear therein and action has been taken at their instance, the petitioners have necessary locus. 9. The order dated 8th April 2011 in Writ Petition No. 7689/2010 does not contain necessary facts indicating the situation in which the petitioner therein has been found to have no locus. The said order, therefore, cannot be used as a precedent. The judgment dated 7th June 2001 in Writ Petition No. 139/2000 considers the question of locus only in the background of a challenge to suspension of license of a fair price shop owner during pendency of criminal case against him. This court has found that the petitioner could not point out any provision making it compulsory for the authorities to cancel the license moment criminal case was filed against license holder. The order of suspension of license there, was solely on the ground of pendency of criminal case. The said judgment, therefore, is also of no use in the present controversy. 10. Here, the authorization is not suspended but cancelled. The cancellation is not only on account of complaint (6) but also because of seizure of a vehicle in which food grains in fair price shop were being transported for sale in black market. Respondent no.4 was then given a show cause notice and after obtaining his reply, on 29-1-2010, the District Supply Officer has passed first order against him for proved charges. The cancellation of authorization is, therefore, not on account of any criminal case but on account of proved charges. This finding has been then maintained by revisional authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) at Nashik. These findings are set aside by the revisional authority, namely, respondent no.1. 11. As the orders of District Supply Officer and Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) are in favour of the petitioners and due cognizance of their grievance has been taken, it is apparent that by not hearing them, no prejudice is caused. However, if the order was to be reversed, the petitioners needed to be heard. 12. The impugned order passed by respondent no.1 does not show a finding that petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties and hence it cannot be said that respondent no.1 has refused to hear them. It only shows that present respondent no.4 did not join petitioners as parties and, therefore, respondent no.1 did not hear them. (7) 13. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order passed by respondent no.1 on 15th October 2010, is quashed and set aside. However, as the fair price shop of respondent no.4 is already functioning, the same is not disturbed till the revision is decided afresh by respondent no. 1, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. (ii) The petitioners have given their no objection to continuation of shop by respondent no.4 till the revision is decided by respondent no.1. (iii) The petitioners, as also, respondent no.4 shall appear before respondent no.1 on 23rd May 2011 and respondent no.1 shall then hear them and pass fresh orders in the matter, as early as possible and in any case, by 31st July 2011. (iv) Needless to mention that the question about locus or status of present petitioners is left open and can be looked into by respondent no.1 while deciding the revision. (v) It is made clear that observations made by this court are only for the purposes of deciding the petition, as filed, and shall (8) not influence respondent no.1 while hearing the revision finally. 14. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1804