1 (WP 109 of 2011 with WP 111 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 109 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2011 Smt. Geeta Gajanan Pawar ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr. N.V. Gangal for Petitioner Mrs. P.S. Cardozo-AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. Anilkumar Patil i/b. Mr. Y.D. Dalvi for Respondent No.5 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, the learned AGP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Respondent No.3 dated 17.9.2008 which was set aside in appeal and which again was set aside in appeal which 2 (WP 109 of 2011 with WP 111 of 2011) was filed before the Respondent No.1. As a result of the impugned order, the licence which was granted to the Petitioner to run a fair price shop has been suspended. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the Essential Commodities Order of 1986 and also by virtue of orders of 1975 and 1966, only a Controller of the Rationing or the State Government was empowered to suspend the said licence. Secondly, it is submitted that the persons who had filed the complaint to various authorities, have now given an affidavit in favour of the Petitioner in which they have stated that they have no complaints against the Petitioner herein. Thirdly, it is submitted that the allegations which were made against the Petitioner would at the most entail minor or medium in nature. It is, submitted that,therefore, the licence ought not to have been suspended since maximum penalty prescribed for minor and minimum offences was forfeiture the security deposit amount. It is also submitted that out of the representation made to various authorities, certain persons were already dead and, therefore, a false and fabricated representation was made in the name of non- existence persons. 3 (WP 109 of 2011 with WP 111 of 2011) 4. On the other hand, the learned AGP for the State submitted that by virtue of the Government's Decision dated 13th April, 2001, power to issue licence was delegated by the State Government to the Collector. She submitted that Collector having the power to suspend the licence and he had after passing a reasoned order, suspended the licence of the Petitioner and this order was confirmed by the Hon'ble Minister and, therefore, no case was made out for interfering with the said order. 5. There is some substance in the submissions made by the learned AGP for the State. The Government resolution clearly discloses that the State Government has delegated the power to the Collector to issue licences which also includes cancellation or suspension of the licence. The allegations which are made against the Petitioner are of serious nature and, therefore, the Collector thought it fit to suspend the said licence after giving hearing to the Petitioner and making an inquiry. So far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the persons who had made the representation had later on filed in favour of the Petitioner or some of the persons are not in existence, in my view, this submission cannot be considered while 4 (WP 109 of 2011 with WP 111 of 2011) exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India since it is a disputed question of fact. Therefore, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order. It would be appropriate, however, if a direction is given to the concerned authorities to take fresh inquiry as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of four weeks. Otherwise, rationing card holders would suffer. 6. At the stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the ad-interim relief which has been passed may be continued. This, however, opposed by the learned counsel for the Respondents. It is submitted that an alternate arrangement has been made for supplying food grains through another shop. That being the position, it will not be possible to continue the ad-interim relief since continuation of the ad-interim relief would constitute allowing the writ petition. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed and disposed of. 7. So far as the writ petition no. 109 of 2011 is concerned, this is in respect of kerosene licence which was given. In respect of this licence, also several 5 (WP 109 of 2011 with WP 111 of 2011) complaints were received and after taking into consideration the serious nature of allegations made against the Petitioners, the said licence was suspended pending further inquiry. 8. The Collector to expeditiously complete the inquiry and, if possible within a period of four weeks from today. With these directions both the writ petitions are disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)