bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 884 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 884 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 884 OF 2009 Budharam Yashawant Gharat ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.A.Pol for the petitioner. Mr.V.A.Sonpal, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 24TH APRIL, 2009 24TH APRIL, 2009 24TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed on 11.7.2008 by respondent No.1. By this order, the revision application filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Konkan Division, has been confirmed. The Deputy Commissioner i.e. respondent No.2 herein, has held that the licence issued in favour of the petitioner should be cancelled in view of the serious discrepancies committed by the petitioner. In my opinion, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 herein is illegal, inasmuch as, it does not consider the Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991 in which the 2 nature of offences which could be taken into consideration as minor discrepancies, medium discrepancies and serious discrepancies have been defined. 2. The show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner, mentioned several discrepancies allegedly committed by the petitioner, most of which amounted to serious discrepancies. However, the respondent No.3 by the impugned order has found that the discrepancies with regard to failure to take signatures of the ration card holders on the receipts and failure to put up a board on the fair price shop had been proved. These discrepancies, despite being minor discrepancies, led to the petitioner’s licence being cancelled. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner to respondent No.2 who has confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3. The revision application preferred by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.2 has been dismissed. 3. In my opinion, the orders suffer from infirmities and are perverse. The orders do not take into consideration the Government Resolution of 1991 which stipulates the punishment for discrepancies. The discrepancies which have been proved against the petitioner can only be considered as minor discrepancies 3 under that Government Resolution. The punishment for such discrepancies is the issuance of a warning and/or forfeiture of the deposit upto 50%. Instead of penalising the petitioners with these punishments, the respondents have directed that the licence for the shop run by the petitioner should be cancelled. 3. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside. 4. An advertisement has been issued by the District Supply Officer on 6.8.2008 for allotment of the petitioner’s fair price shop. There has been no interim relief in the matter although the petition was taken up for admission in January, 2009. Therefore in all probability, after the advertisement, the fair price shop may have been allotted to some other persons. However, in case it has not been allotted, the petitioner will be entitled to continue with the fair price shop after restoring to him the licence for the same. 5. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.