WP/2760/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2760 OF 2011 Subhash Ramrao Beedkar VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra & Anr ... Shri Bhavthankar Vivek, Advocate for Petitioner Smt. Shinde Vaishali, AGP for Respondents ... CORAM : D B BHOSALE & S B DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : July 12, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent 2 - District Supply Officer to grant license of kerosene and fair price shop for village Pimpalgaon Gade in favour of petitioner, on the basis of heirship and also seeks to quash the order dated 11.2.2011 passed by respondent 2 District Supply Officer rejecting proposal for grant of license of kerosene and fair price shop on the basis of heirship in favour of the petitioner 2. It is case of the petitioner that father of the petitioner was holding authorization to run kerosene and fair price shop for village Pimpalgaon Gade, Tq. Parli. On the basis of some complaint made against WP/2760/2011 2 him, said authorization was suspended. Aggrieved thereby, he filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. It came to be allowed on 17.2.2006. However, said order was questioned by the Member of Legislative Assembly (Shri Salunke) before the revisional authority - Honourable Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, Mumbai. It is the grievance of the petitioner that ex-parte stay was granted by the Honourable Minister on 9.3.2006. Father of the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition against the grant of ex-parte stay before this Court. This Court directed the Honourable Minister to decide the said matter within a stipulated period. Petitioner submits that the Honourable Minister while disposing of the matter, imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the father of the petitioner but directed to continue authorization of fair price shop by judgment and order dated 10.8.2006. According to petitioner, said amount has been deposited. 3. It is further contended that during pendency of the said proceedings, the cardholders of the shop of the petitioner's father were attached to fair price shop in another village. That fair price shop holder also committed serious irregularities. The petitioner submits that father of the petitioner, therefore, filed a representation to respondent 2 and requested them to give authorization of shop in his favour. Since the respondents authorities were not agreeable to same, father of the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6746 of 2007 in this Court. Father of the petitioner died on 2.7.2008 during pendency of the said writ petition The WP/2760/2011 3 petitioner and other legal heirs of deceased Ramrao filed civil application for bringing them on record as legal heirs of deceased petitioner. It came to be allowed. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing that legal representatives of deceased Ramrao may tender proper application to the appropriate authority for continuing the license in their name and concerned authority may consider such request as per law. 4. The petitioner further submits that in view of the Government Resolution dated 22.12.1997 legal heirs of deceased license holder are entitled to continue with the license The petitioner, therefore, applied for getting heirship certificate from the Civil Court which was received on 17.7.2009. All legal heirs of deceased Ramrao gave consent in favour of the petitioner on 29.9.2008 that they have no objection for grant of the said shop in favour of the petitioner Accordingly, on 25.8.2009, the petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar Parli Vaijanath for grant of kerosene and fair price shop on the basis of heirship in his favour. The petitioner submitted all required documents including consent letter dated 29.9.2008. The Tahsildar, Parali was pleased to forward the said proposal for sanction to respondent 2 - District Supply Officer, Beed on 22.9.2009. On 12.12.2009, District Supply Officer sought some documents from the petitioner, including the earlier authorization in favour of the father of the petitioner, which have been submitted by the petitioner. Said proposal was pending for a long time. The Tahsildar, Parali Vaijanath, however, by his communication dt. WP/2760/2011 4 14.1.2011 (Exhibit "F" to the petition) reminded the District Supply Officer about pendency of the said proposal. It was also communicated by Tahsildar that attested copy of authorization of fair price shop as per the Rules was furnished to District Supply Officer. On 11.2.2011, respondent 2 District Supply Officer issued order observing that copy of the original authorization was not submitted by the petitioner and on this ground request made by the petitioner for transfer of authorization was rejected. File was accordingly closed. Copy of this communication was also endorsed to the petitioner The petitioner has challenged the said communication dt. 11.2.2011 in this Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us to page 12 Exhibit "B" of the Writ Petition Learned AGP admits that the consent by other legal heirs of deceased has been given in favour of the petitioner. In this consent letter, specific reference is made to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6746 of 2007. In clear terms all legal heirs have consented for transfer of authorization of fair price shop in favour of the petitioner In view of the communication impugned in this writ petition dated 11.2.2011, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took us to Exhibit"C" - Page 14 of the Writ Petition. This is a communication addressed by Tahsildar to District Supply Officer. From this document, learned AGP admits that consent letter of legal heirs was forwarded to District Supply Officer so also other documents were also forwarded. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that attested copy WP/2760/2011 5 of the authorization has already been submitted through Tahsildar and ultimately it has reached the District Supply Officer. In our opinion, communication at Exhibit "C" cannot be accepted on the background of the communication addressed by the Tahsildar at Exhibit "E", dated 22.9.2009. Now, it is for the District Supply Officer concerned to pass the appropriate order regarding transfer of authorization in favour of the petitioner 6. In the result the petition is partly allowed. Order dated 11.2.2011 passed by Respondent 2 - District Supply Officer is quashed and set aside. Respondent 2 - District Supply Officer is directed to pass appropriate order regarding transfer of authorization in favour of the petitioner within two weeks from today. The petitioner is directed to produce copy of this order before respondent 2 - District Supply Officer, within a week from today. [ S B DESHMUKH, J. ] [ D B BHOSALE, J. ] akl