1 wp 5784.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5784 OF 2011 Limbaji S/o Gema Jadhav, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Rampur Tanda, Tq. Palam, District Parbhani. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Additional Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The District Supply Officer, Parbhani. 4. Rajaram S/o Hari Rathod, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Rampur Tanda, Tq. Palam, District Parbhani. .. .. Respondent Shri P. S. Dighe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri R. T. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. 2 wp 5784.11 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 04TH AUGUST, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner was granted fair price shop license at village Rampur Tanda. The said license was suspended by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner preferred a revision which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded back. Thereafter, the license of the petitioner was canceled. The proceedings took place. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal. The said order was assailed by filing Writ Petition No. 424/2011. This Court partly allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 canceled the license issued in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. 3. Shri Dighe, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry report has been submitted. The enquiry report supports the case of the petitioner. There are no adverse 3 wp 5784.11 circumstances, nor any facts which would necessiate the action of canceling the license in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 did not consider all these aspects and without assigning any reasons has passed an order cancelling the license of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel the said order is passed without any application of mind and without considering the material before it. 4. The learned counsel Shri Deshmukh for the respondent No. 4 supports the order and submits that the action has been rightly taken and people were not being provided with the supply of the grains. All the facets are considered by the authority. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also supports the order passed. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 further contends that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner. In the light of the alternate remedy the present petition need not be entertained. 5. This Court in Writ Petition 424/2011 has observed that the petitioner has suffered prejudice as the copy of report was not made available to the petitioner and also considered the common statements allegedly recorded during enquiry. According to the 4 wp 5784.11 petitioner, those complainants were not of the card holders from his shop. After the order of the respondent No. 3 was set aside, the respondent No. 3 was expected to exhaustively deal with the matter. The respondent No. 3 is required to scan enquiry report, the statements recorded, so also the say of the petitioner before arriving at a conclusion to take such a extreme step of cancelling the license of the petitioner. The perusal of the impugned order, it is manifest that no reasons are given, nor it depicts that the enquiry report and the case put forth by the petitioner has been considered. The reasons are the life-line of any order i. e. passed. It depicts the application of mind of the authority dealing with the matter. The impugned order is bereft of any reasons. In the light of the above, I am inclined to quash and set aside the order, as the order does not show that the material before the authority was considered. I am not relegating the petitioner to an alternate remedy. 6. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.05.2011 is quashed and set aside. All the parties are relegated to the respondent No. 3. The parties shall appear before the respondent No. 3 on 22 nd August, 2011. The respondent No. 3 shall thereafter decide the proceedings afresh 5 wp 5784.11 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two (2) months from today. The Rule is made absolute in above terms. 7. The authenticated copy be provided to parties to act upon. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11