(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3830 OF 1997 Shashikant s/o. Radhakishan Patwari, Aged : Major, Occupation : Business, R/o. at present at Tembhurni, District : Jalna. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. State Minister for Civil Supplies, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 3. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Divisional Commissioner Office, Aurangabad. 4. The Collector, Collector Office, Jalna. 5. The District Supply Officer, Jalna. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 5. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 6th May 1997, thereby dismissing the revision filed by the present petitioner, upholding the order passed by the District Supply Officer, canceling the licence of the petitioner, and the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, dismissing the first review. 2. The licence of the petitioner came to be cancelled by the first authority, on the ground that the petitioner was running these two licences on a "Naukarnama" executed in favour of one Shri Bhavar and that said Shri Bhavar was doing the business and giving Rs. 1200/- per tanker to the present petitioner. (3) 3. Mr. A.S. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner was granted four licences, it was physically impossible for him to run all the four licences himself and, therefore, it was necessary to engage services of someone else. He submits that the only basis, for arriving at a finding of the authority, is the statement of said Shri Bhavar, who was not given an opportunity to be cross examination by the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 4. Mr. N.B. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the contrary, submits that the petitioner is running four licences. It is submitted that a person, who is granted licence on the self-employment scheme, is required to run the licence and not through others. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted. 5. In the present matter, interim relief is operating from 15th October 1997 and the petitioner is continuing with the licences due to the interim orders. The petitioner has been granted licences in the year 1988 and the policy of the State Government, not to grant more than one licence to one person, was for the first time, implemented in the year 1990. Nothing has been brought on record to establish that a person cannot engage services of employees for running the licences. No (4) allegations, regarding malpractices and black marketing, etc., are made against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "b". However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3830