( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5173 OF 2008 Rajabhau s/o Jijarao Ghuge, R/o Ambarwadi, Tq. Jintoor, District Parbhani. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 2. The District Supply Officer, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. 3. The Tahsildar, Jintoor. 4. Pandharinath s/o Namdeo Ghuge, R/o Ambarwadi, Tq. Jintoor, Dist. Parbhani. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.B. Ghatol Patil Pimpalgaonkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Thombre, advocate for respondent No. 4. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 9th June, 2009] ( 2 ) PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 15th March, 2008 rendered by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in Revision Petition No. 227/2007 whereby and whereunder the order dated 26th July, 2007 rendered by the District Supply Officer, Parbhani, was set aside. 2. There were certain complaints against the respondent No. 4 in regard to conduct of the business of fair price shop run by him. The petitioner alongwith some other in the village ventilated such grievances by a common representation dated 8th February, 2007. The petitioner is Sarpanch of the village. He is the President of Vigilance Committee nominated by the Government as per Government Resolution dated 5th November, 1999. The respondent No. 4 admittedly runs a fair price shop in the village. 3. Substance of the grievances ventilated by some of the villagers and the petitioner was that some of the ration card holders were not residing in the village and yet, the ( 3 ) grains and other commodities were being shown to have been supplied to them, members of `kande’ family were being given benefit of the schemes available to persons below poverty line and a scheme called “Antyodaya Scheme” (-------------) notwithstanding the fact that three (3) of them were members of the same family and were landlords. There were irregularities in issuance of the cards so as to avail benefits of the schemes meant for the members of poor strata, so on and so forth. 4. The inquiry conducted by the Tahsildar indicated certain irregularities in the issuance of cards to some of the consumers of the fair price shop. It was found that the beneficiaries had misused the cards. It was also noticed that the respondent No. 4 did not notify such kind of malpractices to the concerned revenue officer/District Supply Officer. It was also noticed that the respondent No. 4 got undue benefit of the “BPL/Antyodaya” Scheme. The District Supply Officer (D.S.O.) issued a notice to the respondent No. 4. The explanation given by the respondent No. 4 was considered by the learned D.S.O. On the basis of material gathered during the inquiry, the learned D.S.O. came to the ( 4 ) conclusion that the respondent No. 4 owns 3 acres 8 Ares land and is member of a wealthy family, yet, has derived benefit of the “Antyodaya Scheme” in order to defraud the Government. The license of the fair price shop was, therefore, suspended by the learned D.S.O., vide order dated 11th May, 2007. The respondent No. 4 preferred a revision which came to be dismissed. The learned D.S.O. lateron revoked the license granted in favour of the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 26th July, 2007. The respondent No. 4 preferred revision application which came to be allowed. Hence, this petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned judgement, it is explicit that the learned Divisional Commissioner did not address the issue regarding alleged malpractices adopted by the respondent No. 4. According to the fact finding of the D.S.O., the respondent No. 4 owns agricultural land and is not eligible to take benefit of the “Antyodaya” (---------) scheme. The learned D.S.O. came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 4 distributed excessive quantity of wheat and rice to the persons having bogus cards. The main finding of the learned D.S.O. Is that nine (9) beneficiaries were not residing in ( 5 ) the village, yet, distribution of the grains was shown to have been made to them. It is also noticed by the learned D.S.O. That name of the respondent No. 4 was shown in the list of persons eligible to take benefit of “Antyodaya” scheme, notwithstanding the fact that he himself is a fair price shop owner. The question required to be considered was whether the respondent No. 4 indulged in malpractices while working as fair price shop owner. The learned Divisional Commissioner held that the respondent No. 4 could not be held responsible for issuance of bogus ration cards. The learned Divisional Commissioner came to the conclusion that necessary administrative action was required to be taken against the persons responsible for issuance of bogus ration cards. It may be that bogus ration cards were issued to fictitious persons or to the persons who were not residing in the village and that concerned Revenue Officials may be responsible for such lapses. Still, however, there is no proper explanation as regards the distribution of the commodities to such persons who were not residing in the village. The learned Divisional Commissioner has also not considered whether the respondent No. 4 has taken undue benefit of “Antyodaya” Scheme or any other scheme though he ( 6 ) was ineligible to do so. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgement of the Divisional Commissioner appears to be lopsided. The significant aspects about finding of facts rendered by the learned D.S.O. Are apparently not considered by the learned Divisional Commissioner. Hence, the impugned judgement is required to be interfered with. 6. It may be mentioned that Mr. Thombre, learned advocate objected maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. I do not agree. The petitioner is the President of Vigilance Committee and, therefore, have the locus-standi to maintain the petition. He had participated in the inquiry before the learned D.S.O. It appears that he had filed caveat but the same was not considered by the learned Divisional Commissioner. 7. For the aforestated reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgement and order is quashed. The revision petition is restored to its original position with direction that the learned Divisional Commissioner shall re- hear the parties and decide the same afresh. The petitioner ( 7 ) be allowed to participate during the hearing of the said revision petition. All the points are kept open. The revision petition shall be decided within a period of four (4) months as far as possible. The learned Divisional Commissioner shall not, however, take any adverse steps against the respondent No. 4 during the period of four (4) months mentioned above. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/WP5173-08