1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4223 of 2009 (Dattapur Sewa Co-operative Society v. Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 6 th October, 2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, whereby he maintained the order of Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Amravati Division, Amravati, remanding the matter back to the District Supply Officer, Amravati, and setting aside the order dated 28-9-2007 passed by the District Supply Officer. A complaint about malpractices in the fair price shop run by respondent No.4 Chandrakant Rambhau Gulhane was entertained by the District Supply Officer, who, by his order dated 28-9-2007, cancelled the licence of respondent No.4 and forfeited 2 100% security deposit. On revision, the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) found that respondent No.4 was not at all heard and, therefore, set aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the District Supply Officer for a fresh hearing. He also ordered that till then respondent No.4 should be permitted to conduct his business. This order was challenged in revision before the Hon’ble Minister, who had first granted stay to the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) and eventually, while dismissing the revision, vacated the stay order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are serious allegations of misconduct against respondent No.4 – including the fact that he is permanently employed as Peon – and, therefore, he could not have been allotted a shop. The grievances may be indeed serious, but it does not imply that the elementary principles of natural justice should not be followed and respondent No.4 should not be heard before penal action is taken against him. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply) has considered that in the chargesheet the fact that respondent No.4 is serving as Peon was not included. Now, of course, since the fact has been agitated, the District Supply Officer would undoubtedly consider all these aspects and decide the question as to whether 3 respondent No.4 could be continued with the licence to run a fair price shop. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the face of such serious allegations, rewarding respondent No.4 with the licence to carry on business till the matter is decided first by the District Supply officer, then by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), and thereafter by the Hon’ble Minister, would cause serious injustice to the others – including citizens of the Village, who are suffering. This grievance may be genuine. Yet, unless it is decided that respondent No.4 has indeed indulged in malpractices, it may not be permissible to deprive him of the right to run a shop, for which a licence has been given to him. Since the orders impugned do not show that any perversity or illegality has been committed, the petition is dismissed. Considering the seriousness of the charges, including the fact that respondent No.4 is serving as Peon, the District Supply Officer would undoubtedly endeavour to dispose of the complaint after hearing the parties, preferably within a month and in any case within a period of three months. Judge pdl