1 wp 6964.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6964 OF 2011 1. Deelip Nahaanji Thail, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Agril., 2. Ramchandra Rahucha Gawali, Age : Major, Occu. : Agril., 3. Santya Dage Thakare, Age : Major, Occu. : Agril., 4. Raju Mangya Chaudhary, Age : Major, Occu. : Agril., 5. Santosh Ramlal Thakare, Age : Major, Occu. : Agril., 6. Bharat Santya Thakare, Age : Major, Occu. : Agril., 7. Ramlal Chunilal Gaikwad, Age : Major, Occu. : Agril., All R/o Pangan, Tq. Sakri, District Dhule. .. .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, 2 wp 6964.11 Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nasik Division, Nasik. 3. The District Supply Officer, Dhule. 4. Pandav Chindha Pawar, Age : Major, Occu. : Fair Price Shop Owner, R/o Pangan (Kolapada), Fair Price Shop No. 156, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule. .. .. Respondents Shri S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The license of the present respondent No. 4 was cancelled by the District Supply Officer. The respondent No. 4 preferred a 3 wp 6964.11 revision before the Hon’ble Minister. The Hon’ble Minister vide order dated 14.07.2011 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) and the District Supply Officer. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 3. I have heard Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C. R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 4. The dispute pertains to the cancellation of the fair price shop license of the respondent No. 4. Earlier this Court had remitted the matter to the Hon’ble Minister with directions to decide the same afresh. It appears that, after the matter was remitted, the Hon’ble Minister has partly allowed the revision. I have gone through the said order. The order is bereft of any reasons. The Hon’ble Minister has not arrived at any independent findings. He has only discussed the case put forth by the authorities and respondent No. 4 and only on the ground that the matter is subjudice and the matter would be decided by the Court and till that time subject to decision of the Court, the license is renewed. Apart from this, there is no finding arrived at about the allegations against the present respondent No. 4. 4 wp 6964.11 The Hon’ble Minister was performing a quasi judicial act and it is expected that when a quasi judicial authority is deciding the matter the authority has to give reasons for arriving at independent finding and the conclusion. The reasons are the life line of any judicial or quasi judicial order. Reasons depict the application of mind on the part of the authority passing the order, as the impugned order is bereft of any reasons same cannot be sustained. 5. In view of above, I quash and set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties to the Hon’ble Minister who shall decide the same afresh by giving reasons. 6. Earlier when the matter was remitted, this Court had observed that the fair price shop of the respondent No. 4 is already functioning and the same is not disturbed till the revision is decided afresh. As the said fair price shop of the respondent No. 4 is functioning, the respondent No. 4 is allowed to run the said fair price shop till the decision by the Hon’ble Minister in the revision. The parties agree to appear before the Hon’ble Minister on 08 th November, 2011. The Hon’ble Minister shall make an endeavor to decide the proceedings expeditiously. 5 wp 6964.11 Rule is made absolute in above terms, however with no order as costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11