: 1 : wp.1486.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1486 OF 2011 Sanjay Rajaram Deshmukh .. Petitioner V/s. Jitendra Shantaram Deshmukh & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner Mr.Sanjeev P. Kadam for the Respondent No.1 Ms.M.P. Thakur, AGP, for Resp. Nos.2 to 4 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER SMT.MHATRE, J.): 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Respondent No.2 on 1.11.2010 in revision application No.1 of 2010 filed by Respondent No.1 herein. Respondent No.2 has set aside the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Alibag dated 2.3.2010 while partly permitting Respondent No.1 to run a fair price shop. 2. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the District Supply : 2 : wp.1486.2011 Officer regarding illegalities/irregularities committed by Respondent No.1 who runs a fair price shop. On the basis of this complaint, the District Supply Officer, Alibag i.e. Respondent No.4 herein paid a surprise visit to the shop on 24.10.2008 and found several irregularities being committed. The licence of Respondent No.1 was suspended on 24.7.2009 by the District Supply Officer, Raigad. The ration cards for the purchase of kerosene were attached to another shop by the order dated 27.8.2009. On an enquiry being conducted by the Talathi, Karade (Khurd) Sajja under the directions issued by the Tehsildar, Panvel, it was found that fictitious persons had been allotted ration cards. A panchanama was recorded indicating that 49 out of the 51 cardholders who purchased supplies from the fair price shop run by Respondent No.1 were fictitious persons. Aggrieved by the decision of the suspension of his licence, Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Supply), Konkan Region. The appeal was partly allowed on 30.11.2009. The matter was remanded to the District Supply Officer in order to afford an opportunity to Respondent No.1 of being heard before any adverse action was taken against him. A show-cause notice was issued to Respondent No.1. He responded to that notice by submitting his contentions on 30.1.2010. The Collector, Raigad, however, was not impressed with these : 3 : wp.1486.2011 contentions and the licence granted in favour of the Respondent was cancelled and the amount deposited by the respondent as security deposit was directed to be forfeited. 3. A revision application was preferred by Respondent No.1 against this order on 10.3.2010. The petitioner sought an opportunity to be heard by the Minister (Food Civil Supply and Consumer Protection), Respondent No.2 herein. A representation was made by the petitioner and others in the locality of the village before Respondent No.2 on 29.9.2010 with regard to the illegalities and irregularities being committed by Respondent No.1. However, Respondent No.2 was not impressed with this representation and set aside the order passed by the District Supply Officer cancelling the licence issued to Respondent No.1. However, the order with respect to the forfeiture of the deposit amount was confirmed. Similarly, a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed and permission was granted to restart the fair price shop. Respondent No.2 was of the view that there were only technical irregularities and, therefore, passed the aforesaid order. The learned advocate for the Petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by Respondent No.2 does not consider the petitioner's contention regarding the fact that Respondent No.1 was supplying essential : 4 : wp.1486.2011 commodities to bogus ration cardholders. According to the learned advocate the impugned order does not advert to the fact that the Talathi had conducted an enquiry and found that 49 out of 51 cardholders being supplied essential commodities by Respondent No.1 were fictitious persons. 4. We have perused the impugned order and it is apparent that the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner must be accepted. Respondent No.2 has not considered the report of the enquiry conducted by the Talathi and has merely indicated that 8 irregularities committed by Respondent No.1 were technical in nature for which his licence need not be cancelled. In our opinion, the order impugned in this petition is required to be set aside as it does not take into account vital aspects of the matter. 5. Accordingly, the order passed by Respondent No.2 on 1.11.2010 in the revision application is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to Respondent No.2 for a fresh decision after hearing the parties concerned. Respondent No.2 shall take into consideration the report of the Talathi and other relevant factors before passing the final order. In the interest of justice, the parties are directed : 5 : wp.1486.2011 to maintain status quo for two weeks from today. 6. It is made clear that this order of status quo shall cease to operate automatically on the expiry of two weeks from today. 7. Petition is disposed off accordingly. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)