1 W.P. 1013/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1013/2011 1 Balaji @ Balraje s/o Onkar Pawar, Age : 25 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Jategaon, Taluka : Georai, District Beed. 2 Janu s/o Nila Pawar, Age : 34 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Hadaltanda under Jategaon Tq. Georai, District Beed. 3 Ankush s/o Namdeo Pawar, Age : 35 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Hadaltanda under Jategaon, Tq. Georai, District Beed. ...Petitioners. Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2 The Hon’ble State Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 3 The Hon’ble Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 4 The Deputy Commissioner, Civil Supply Aurangabad. 5 District Supply Officer, Beed. 6 The Tahsildar, Georai, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. 7 Manohar s/o Nana Pawar, Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Jategaon, Taluka Georai District : Beed. ...Respondents. Mr. R.N. Dhorde h/f Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Mr. D.S. Kudale, Advocate for respondent No.7. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 7th July, 2011. 2 W.P. 1013/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By consent of learned counsel for both parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Heard. 4. The petitioners are resident of village Jategaon Tq. Georai District Beed. They challenged the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, State of Maharashtra dated 15/10/2010 in review application No. 10101/226/10/21. 5. The facts leading to this order in short can be stated as under. The petitioners made a complaint on 4th September, 2008 against the manner in which respondent No. 8 was doing his business of ration shop and kerosene outlet, to the District Supply Officer. The District Supply Officer, on receipt of this complaint issued notice to the respondent No. 7 and asked him to submit his explanation on the complaint. Respondent No. 7 did not make any submission and so the D.S.O. passed two orders on 06/10/2008 canceling the licence to run the ration shop and the permit for sale of kerosene. Respondent No. 7 then filed revision petition No. 328/2008 before the Dy. Commissioner, (Supply), Aurangabad against one of the orders referred to above. The revision was filed only as against the cancellation of licence to run ration shop. The learned Dy. Commissioner heard respondent No.7, but refused to interfere in the impugned order. He dismissed the revision. 6. As against this, respondent No. 7 went before the Hon’ble Minister, Civil Supply etc. of State of Maharashtra. But even there, 3 W.P. 1013/2011 respondent No. 7 failed to obtain favourable order. The revision was dismissed. This order was passed on 15th October, 2009 by the Hon’ble Minister. At that time, Shri Rameshchandra Bang was the Minister. 7. Respondent No. 7 thereafter filed review application before the Hon’ble Minister in February, 2010. The Hon’ble Minister has powers to review his own order as per the provisions of clause 24 of Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of distribution) Amendment Order 2007. Clause 24(2) reads as under. 24(2) Government may on an application made or suo-motu at any time before the expiry of one years from the date of any order passed by it in revision under this clause may review such order if it is satisfied about the reasons to do so on any of the following grounds namely:- (1) Discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed or order was made; OR (2) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; OR (3) for any other sufficient reason And upon such review, it is shall appear to the State Government that such order should be modified annulled confirmed, it may pass such order it deem fit. (24) (3) Order passed in review shall on no account re-reviewed.” 8. It is pertinent to note that the earlier order dated 15th October, 2009 was passed after hearing the submissions made by respondent No.7. The Hon’ble Minister in this order considered the facts, allegations and the evidence that has come on record against respondent No.7. Now, if the Hon’ble Minister is empowered to review Government order as per above mentioned provisions, he must have one of the grounds mentioned above to do so. He should either have a ground of new and important matter of evidence produced before him or he should have pointed out some mistake or error apparent on 4 W.P. 1013/2011 the face of record or he should have given any other but sound reason for reviewing the order. The impugned order if translated in English, would in short read as under. “Respondent No.7’s shop was inspected by the District Supply Officer and certain irregularities were noticed during such a inspection. Respondent No.7 denied these irregularities and contended that he was not given sufficient opportunity to put forth his case in reply to the allegations and the D.S.O. recorded ex-parte order. The D.S.O. did not examine as to whether the persons who recorded statements against the respondent No.7, were in fact beneficiaries of his shop. The D.S.O. did not call for the response of respondent No.7 on the allegations made by the witnesses and so the inquiry of the D.S.O. was found to be defective. In view of this, and in view of the submissions made before me, the earlier order deserves to be set aside. However, respondent No. 7 should be saddled with the penalty of Rs.5,000/- for the irregularities he had committed, along with forfeiture of his shop deposit, for giving him all opportunities to run the shop.” 9. With the help of learned advocate appearing for the parties, I have tried to translate the order as far as correctly. However, it is apparent that the Hon’ble Minister made no attempt to either refer to the provisions of Clause 24(2) quoted above nor he mentioned any of the valid grounds referred to, in the above mentioned provision. There was apparently no discovery of new and important matter of evidence, which could have changed the outcome of the litigation. The Hon’ble Minister neither referred to any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The Hon’ble Minister recorded finding which is mentioned above that the D.S.O. had committed irregularities while conducting the inquiry. No doubt, that was one of the bones of contention of respondent No.7 since beginning. He was raising the issue of insufficient opportunity being given to him at the time of inquiry but the authorities who heard his case earlier, rejected this submission. The Hon’ble Minister while reviewing his own order, 5 W.P. 1013/2011 cannot in my view, reappreciate the contention of the respondent referred to above. This contention was already considered and was rejected. While examining the correctness of the order in review, there was no possibility of re-examination of issue which was already examined earlier. This was certainly beyond the scope of the review. The order thus is grossly illegal and deserves to be set aside. 10. It is contended that the petitioners were not party to the proceeding. They were neither parties before the D.S.O. or before the Commissioner or before the Hon’ble Minister. The respondents tried to suggest that in view of this, they would not have locus to file this writ petition. I am afraid, this is a futile objection. As said above, the petitioners are the original complainants on whose complaint the proceeding had started in year 2008. They have stated in their petition that they are the complainants in this case and they are residents of this village. In the rejoinder, they have also mentioned that they are beneficiaries of respondent No.7’s shop. In view of this, they would certainly have locus to file this writ petition. The petition should therefore, succeed. ORDER The petition is allowed. The order of the Hon’ble Minister in review application No. 10101/226/10/21 is set aside. The State of Maharashtra is directed to restore the position viz a viz shop of respondent No.7 which prevailed after passing of the order dated 15/10/2010. Rule is made absolute. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/2011/July7/wp1013.11/ok 6 W.P. 1013/2011