1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6220 OF 2009. Dadarao S/o Rajaram Mundhe, Age 45 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Salmoha, Tq.Gangakhed, District Parbhani. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through it's Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 2. The Minister of Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. The District Supply Officer, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. 5. Dnyanoba S/o Govindrao Mundhe, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o Selmoha, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents. ... 2 Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for the petitioner Mr.D.R.Kale, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.R.V.Gore, advocate holding for Mr.M.S.Tour, advocate for Respondent No.5. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 05.02.2010. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns order dated 3l.8.2009, rendered by Hon'ble Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Revision No.VAM-1609/P.K.457/09/Napu.21. 2. The petitioner was running a fair price shop. The Respondent No.5 made complaints about conduct of the business of said fair price shop. The inquiry into the complaints was done by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer submitted his report to the DSO, Parbhani. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice which he replied on 4.8.2008. The petitioner alleged that the Respondent No.5 had made frivolous and vexatious complaints and was a 3 habitual criminal. The District Supply Officer (DSO) considered the inquiry papers, report and explanation of the petitioner and thereafter revoked the license granted to his fair price shop. The petitioner immediately approached the appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed his appeal and directed to restore the license. Apprehending that the Respondent No.5 may challenge the said order before the Revisional authority, the petitioner filed caveat before the Revisional authority. The Respondent NO.5 preferred Revision petition against the appellate order. The Hon'ble Minister came to the conclusion that the appellate order was erroneous and that the order rendered by the DSO was proper. The Hon'ble Minister held that the petitioner was guilty of the three charges levelled against him, namely, malpractice of selling the grains in the fair price shop at higher rate, malpractice of selling kerosene at higher rate than prescribed, and non-production of the relevant record at the time of inspection. Consequently, the Hon'ble Minister rendered the impugned order. 4 3. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 4. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner alleges that he was never served with any notice of hearing of the Revision Petition. He has categorically stated in the petition that though he had filed caveat, yet, he was not served with any kind of notice after filing of the Revision Petition by the Respondent No.5 nor he had any reason to know that such Revision Petition was filed and was scheduled for hearing before the Hon'ble Minister. This statement made in the petition, on affidavit of the petitioner, has not been denied by the Respondents. There is no record to show that the petitioner was duly served with notice of hearing of the Revision Petition. The impugned order also does not reflect any attempt to secure presence of the petitioner during course of the hearing. 5. The impugned order shows that principles of natural justice were not followed. In particular, the principle "Audi alteram 5 partem" was breached while passing the impugned order. The license of the petitioner was cancelled without giving him opportunity of hearing. Needless to say, the impugned order is unsustainable and unreasonable. It is not necessary to to into the merits inasmuch as the impugned order deserves to be interfered with only on short ground, namely, that it is contrary to the principles of the natural justice. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. The Revision Petition is restored to its original position and the Hon'ble Minister is requested to decide the same within a period of six (6) months as far as possible after hearing both the sides. The parties are directed to appear before the Hon'ble Minister on 4.3.2010. 7. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on merits. No costs. 8. The parties to maintain statusquo 6 position till disposal of the Revision Petition. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp622009