1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.832 OF 2009 Shri Nagorao s/o Vandev Surve, age 48 yrs, Occ. Business, r/o at Post Rui, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded 431 721. ..PETITIONER. V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra (copy to be served on G.P. High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad ) Through its Secretary Food and Civil Supplies Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. District Supply Officer, Nanded, District Supply Office, Nanded. 3. The Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 4. Shri Prem s/o Bhagaji Sukalkar, age 45 yrs, Occ. Agril, R/o Rui, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri S.B. Yawalkar, Shri Dixit, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.M. Shinde, AGP for State-Respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 2nd JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by 2 consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 03.12.2008 vide which the revision filed by the respondent No.4 has been allowed. 3. The petitioner was granted a licence for fair price shop and kerosene. 4. It appears that certain complaints were made by the present respondent No.4 with the respondent No.2. Accordingly, an enquiry was initiated by the respondent No.2 and an order came to be passed on 02.01.2008 thereby canceling the licence granted in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, revision came to be preferred before the respondent No.3. Said revision was allowed vide order dated 03.07.2008. Being aggrieved thereby, revision was preferred by the respondent No.4. Same is allowed. Hence, the present petition. 5. Shri Dixit, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 has erred in reversing the order of respondent No.3 which is a well reasoned order. 6. Shri Bhapkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4, on the contrary submits that, Honourable Minister has rightly passed the order after taking into consideration 3 material on record and by giving an opportunity to all the parties, order has been passed. 7. From the order passed by the respondent No.3, it would appear that the respondent No.3 has found that the respondent No.2 has acted upon the report of the Tahasildar. It has been found that said report was not supplied to the petitioner and as such action which was based on the said report, was in violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner did not have an opportunity to meet the allegations made therein. It could thus be clearly seen that the respondent No.3 had allowed revision basically on the ground that principles of natural justice had not been followed. I find that respondent No.1 has not taken this aspect of the matter while allowing the revision filed by the respondent no.4. 8. In that view of the matter, rule is thus made partly absolute. 9. The order passed by the respondent No.1, respondent No.2 dated 02.01.2008 and respondent No.1 dated 03.12.2008 are quashed and set aside. As directed by the respondent No.3, the licence of the petitioner is restored. However, the respondent No.2 shall re-consider the matter and while re-considering grant an opportunity of the hearing of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4. Needless to state that while reconsidering the matter, the 4 respondent No.2 shall supply the documents which are relied on by him to the present petitioner so also the respondent No.4. The respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiry on remand within a period of three months from today. 10. Authenticated copy be supplied to the learned A.G.P. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp832.09.odt