:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8064 OF 2007 Smt.Satvasila Bhujangrao Gaikwad and Ors. .....Petitioners Versus State of Mahrashtra and Ors. ....Respondents M.V.Aiya for the petitioners. Ms.P.S.Cardozo for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.M.P.Vyas for respondent no.6. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 29th 29th 29th November, 2007 November, 2007 November, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The order under challenge in this petition is delivered by the Cabinet Minister, Food and Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection, State of Maharashtra. By the impugned order dated 1.10.2007, the Minister has set aside the order passed by the Controller of Rationing and Deputy Controller of Rationing dated 21.4.2007 and 16.7.2006 impugned before me. :2: :2: :2: 2. Mr.Aiya appearing for the petitioners make a grievance that above 44 fair-price shopkeepers had made a grievance to the authorities with regard to the acts of omission and commission on the part of two agents. The agents were not regular in supplying the commodities which are to be sold through the fair price shops. In the result on account of lack of supplies, the commodities could not reach the Ration card Holders. He submits that at their instance and upon their complaints, the Controller of Rationing had initiated an action against the agents concerned. The agents concerned approached the Minister invoking his revisional powers and the Minister heard only them but not the present petitioners. Such an approach on the part of the Minister has caused serious prejudice and would adversely affect the public distribution system. 3. I enquired from Mr.Aiya as to how it is possible for the Minister to hear 44 shopkeepers individually. That would not make the hearing possible and probable. If all have to be herd at one time then Minister is likely to face chaotic situation. In such :3: :3: :3: circumstances, Mr.Aiya states that these 44 shopkeepers would duly authorise one of them or form such entity as is permissible in law and empower and authorise it to argue the matter. They would also think of engaging a common advocate who alone will address the arguments in their behalf. Once this course was suggested and accepted by Mr.Aiya, I see no reason for the Minister concerned not to hear the shopkeepers again. The minster to hear the parties as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from today. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the Revision Application is restored to the file of the Minster for hearing afresh on merits and in accordance with law. Needless to state, that 44 complainant/shopkeepers would have to be heard by the Minister. Considering that the order of the Minster of 1.10.2007 is quashed and set aside today, whatsoever arrangement was prevailing under that order would continue to operate until the Revision Application is heard afresh and subject to the outcome of the Revision Application. Petition disposed off. sd/- **********