1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4242 OF 2009 (Ramesh Babanrao Dhumal vs. Digambar Sadobaji Bansod & Ors.) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4116 OF 2009 (Ramesh Babanrao Dhumal vs. Digambar Sadobaji Bansod & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 27, 2009. Heard finally Shri Chambhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shinde, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Khubalkar, learned AGP for respondents No.2 to 4. Both the matters can be disposed of by common order because Respondent No.2 through its Hon’ble Minister has while holding that some mal- practice/ misconduct is established, imposed fine of Rs. 10,000/- upon Respondent No.1 – Fair Price Shop owner/ retail kerosene licensee, and has ordered forfeiture of his security deposit and directed an enquiry to be conducted into the misappropriation to find out its exact extent. The Hon’ble Minister has also directed department to recover the amount at market rate for the misappropriated quantum of commodity i.e. food grains or kerosene. In this background, Shri Chamber, learned counsel argues that the Hon’ble Minister could not have 2 interfered with concurrent findings of lower authorities. He further states that direction is to find out the extent of misappropriation and once such serious charges are found to be established, the licence could not have been restored. He, therefore, states that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Shri Shinde, learned counsel states that as enquiry into the exact quantum of alleged misappropriation is directed to he held, the petitioner has still not challenged the order. He states that in enquiry ultimately Respondent No.1 may be exonerated by recording a finding that no commodity has been misappropriated. He states that in this situation, only with a view to start the shop/ business again, the fine has been deposited and the security has been furnished. He states that since last 25 years, the petitioner is operating the activity without complaint and he relies upon the order dated 25.11.2008 in Writ Petition No. 4922 of 2007 to urge that one chance should be given to Respondent No.1 in the matter. Shri Khubalkar, learned AGP supports the impugned order and he states that if in enquiry, Respondent No.1 is exonerated, there will be no question of effecting any recovery from him and in that event the impugned order imposing some fine and forfeiture of security deposit would be justified, considering the nature of mal-practice established. The lower authorities have found that there was misappropriation and the Hon’ble Minister has also 3 prima facie found that there is misappropriation but then directed detailed enquiry to ascertain its extent. Shri Shinde and learned AGP are right when they contend that in such enquiry ultimately because of evidence, which may come on record, the authorities may find that misappropriation is not established at all. However, that by itself is not sufficient to permit Respondent No.1 to start the business which was closed down on account of concurrent findings. Respondent No.1 has already paid the fine of Rs.10,000/- in both the matters and has also furnishing fresh security deposit. In this situation, Respondent No. 4 – District Supply Officer is directed to conduct the enquiry as per orders of the Hon’ble Minister as early as possible and in any case by 31st January 2010. Till then, Respondent No.1 shall not start his activities/ business. If the findings of District Supply Officer are found adverse to him, liberty to the petitioner as also respondent No.1 (as the case may be) to challenge the impugned findings and the order before competent forum in accordance with law. With this liberty, writ petition is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE *GS.