1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1676/2010. Babarao Motiram Gawner -: VERSUS :- Minister of Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Dept. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2010. Heard Shri S.P. Deshpande, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri V.A. Kothale, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Challenge is to order passed in revision by respondent no.1 restoring authorization of fair price shop in favour of respondent no.4 only with a view to give him one chance. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the charges are found to be proved by the lower Authorities and those charges are not dealt with by the Hon'ble Minister. He further points out that the authorization has been restored just for asking. 2 Learned A.G.P. supports the impugned order. According to him, the Hon'ble Minister has got jurisdiction to modify the punishment. He points out that the Hon'ble Minister has maintained the punishment of forfeiture of security deposit and has further imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- and ordered inquiry to find out the exact quantum of defalcation and recovery therefor. Shri Kothale, learned counsel for respondent no.4 argues that the petitioner has got no locus, as he was not party before the Hon'ble Minister. He further contends that the respondent no.4 has been appropriately punished and this Court should not interfere with the jurisdiction of quantum of punishment. It is apparent that the petitioner before this Court is a BPL Card holder and is interested in the affairs of the fair price shop. Action was initiated on his complaint also and this can be seen from the order dated 13.01.2007 passed by the District Supply Officer. It therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner has no locus to approach this Court. The respondent no.1 Hon'ble Minister has only noticed the charges in paragraph no.2 and thereafter in paragraph no.5 the fact that those charges are proved, is also noticed. Then it is observed that respondent no.4 could not point anything to ignore the said finding. But then only with 3 a view to give him one chance to do business, the impugned order has been passed. It is therefore obvious that involvement of respondent no.4 in serious lapses and the punishment imposed on him as per law has been clearly overlooked by the respondent no.1 in an anxiety to give relief to him and opportunity appears to have been given only with a view to improve. In view of proved charges and the nature thereof, there is no scope to exercise any discretion in the matter of quantum of punishment. In any case the exercise of discretion is not supported by any material on record. The orders passed by the lower authorities are not found to be either erroneous or perverse and there is no finding that the punishment as imposed is excessive. The gross misconducts cannot be allowed to go unpunished and the authorization already canceled cannot be restored only by imposing some fine. I, therefore, find the impugned order dated 17.06.2009 to be unsustainable. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs JUDGE Rgd.