1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4088 OF 1991 Baburao Dnyandevrao Pawar, Age major, Occ. Agri and Business r/o. Lingsa, Taluka Partur District Jalna ...Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra (Through the Government Pleader) High court, Bench at Aurangabad 2 The Assistant Collector, Jalna District Jalna 3 The Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna, District Jalna 4 The Tahsildar, Partur Tq. Partur, District Jalna 5 Narayan Panditrao Bhale, Age major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Lingsa, Tq. Partur District Jalna 6 The Additonal Commissioner, Aurangabad Divsion, Aurangabad ...Respondents ..... Ms. Vaishali Deshmukh, advocate h/f Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the petitioner Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6. ..... 2 CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 24TH NOVEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT:- 1 This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 20.11.1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Case No. 91/SB/DESK-3/CSE/REV/CR-95. 2 The background facts of the case, leading to file the instant writ petition, are as under; The petitioner herein is resident of village Lingsa, Tq. Partur, District Jalna, who is educated unemployed person and running a fair price shop in the village Lingsa, Taluka Partur. Previously, the respondent No.5 was running the fair price shop in the said village. After the said fair price shop was allotted to respondent No.5 herein, there were some complaints of respondent No.5 made by the card holders. Therefore, respondent No.2 directed the Tahsildar, Partur to make enquiry in the matter against respondent No.5. The said Officer made detailed enquiry and came to the conclusion that the respondent No.5 has not distributed the commodities to card holders and also not maintained the record properly. The Inquiry Officer recommended to cancel the licence of respondent No.5. 3 The respondent No.2 herein after going through the remarks of the enquiry Officer in the report submitted by respondent No.4 found that the respondent No.5 has not maintained the record of the shop as per the procedure. So also he has not submitted record before the Inquiry officer and same fact has been admitted by respondent No.5 in his reply. Respondent No.2 passed oder on 24.5.1991 and directed him to deposit the amount. Respondent No.5 was further warned to improve his conduct and the transaction in future. inspite of the above order passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.5 again indulged in similar activities and again the authorities received the complaints against respondent No.5 from card holders. Again respondent No.2 directed the enquiry officer i.e. respondent No.4 to make detailed enquiry against respondent No.5 and for the second time it was also found that the respondent No.5 herein had not maintained the visit book, receipts in particular form and submitted false explanation before the Supply Inspector. Respondent No.2 after perusing the report filed by respondent No.4, issued show cause notice to respondent No.5 and cancelled his licence by order dated 5.8.1991. Respondent No.3 had published public proclamation and invited applications from the interested persons for allotment of fair price shop at village Lingsa. Respondent No.2 interviewed the petitioner and 4 other applicants on 30.9.1991. Respondent No.2 found the petitioner to be eligible person and granted licence in his favour and permitted him to run the said shop. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1000/- through Kisan Vikas Patra bearing No. 03EE 710199 and 03EE 710200 in the post office at Jalna on 11.10.1991. As per the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner herein lifted the food grains in the month of November, 1991. Respondent No.5 filed revision petition under clause 24 of the Order of 1975 before respondent No.6, Divisional Commissioner challenging the order dated 5.8.1991 which is at Exh.”D” to this petition. Respondent No.6 allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.5 with direction to allot the fair price shop to respondent No.5 herein i.e. revision petitioner by order dated 20.11.1991. Hence, this writ petition. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order does not give any cogent reasons while setting aside the order passed by respondent No.2 on 5.8.1991. Respondent No.2 herein passed the order on 5.8.1991 since respondent No.2 has received complaints from card holders even on second occasion. Though respondent No.5 was warned earlier by respondent No.2, again he indulged in illegal activities in not maintaining the proper record and not addressing the grievance of the card holders and therefore, the 5 complaints were received from the card holders and after enquiry by respondent No. 3 and 4 on the directions of respondent No.2, a report was received by respondent No.2 and accordingly a show cause notice was issued to respondent No.5 and action was taken against respondent No.5. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the relevant Government Resolution if the licence holder has not maintained the record properly, his licence is liable to be cancelled. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and reasons recorded by the authority while cancelling the licence of respondent No.5. Relying on the averments in the petition and the grounds taken therein, counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petition deserves to be allowed. 4 Learned A.G.P. representing the authorities i.e. the authorities of the State Government submitted that since the authorities have passed contradictory orders, she is not able to assist this court. 5 On careful perusal of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, I find that the order not only suffers from not having any cogent reasons in respect of issuing directions to the Sub Divisional Officer to re-allot fair price shop to respondent No.5. In fact upon perusal of the impugned order, it clearly appears that the Additional Commissioner has not taken into consideration the fact that the order passed by respondent No.2 was upon receipt of complaints 6 from card holders. Not only this but enquiry was directed even on second occasion against respondent No.5 and after receiving enquiry report from respondent No.4, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice to respondent No.5 and passed order dated 5.8.1991 which is at Exh. “D” to this petition. 6 The reasons which are assigned by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad while appreciating the order dated 5.8.1991, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the Additonal Commissioner has observed that since earlier Sub Divisional Officer was transferred and therefore, the said order came to be passed in second time. In fact, this observations of the Additional Commissioner are contrary to the record, as even on second occasion there was proper enquiry against respondent No.5. After receipt of complaints from card holders and after proper enquiry report was submitted by respondent No.4 on the directions of respondent No.2. Upon receipt of enquiry report, proper show cause notice was given to respondent No.5 and thereafter action followed. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner misdirected himself without verifying the relevant record and without assigning any reasons, has passed a cryptic order thereby not only setting aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna dated 5.8.1991 but has directed to allot the fair price shop to respondent No.5. It appears that the Additional Commissioner did not even bother to look into the record of the case and by cryptic order 7 without assigning any reasons has set aside the order dated 5.8.1991 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner is perverse. 7 In the light of above circumstances, the order dated 20.11.1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Case No. 91/SB/DESK-3/CSE/REV/CR-95, is quashed and set aside. 8 Rule made absolute in the above terms. Petition is allowed to the above extent and disposed of. *****