1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3325 OF 2009. 1. Sanjay Kashiram Kaldate, R/o. Punoti Bk., Distt. Akola. .. PETITIONER/S. // VERSUS // 1. Deorao Uttamrao Savarkar, R/o. Punoti Bk. Distt. Akola. 2. State of Maharashtra, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32. 3. Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Amravati Division, Amravati. 4. District Supply Officer, Akola. .. RESPONDENT/S. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri C.A.Joshi, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009. 1. This petition is directed against order passed by the Hon’ble Minister of the Civil Supplies holding respondent No.1 guilty of some malpractices in distribution of Public Distribution System (PDS) goods, but setting aside orders passed by the authorities below cancelling licence of respondent No.1. Instead, the Minister ordered forfeiture of the entire security deposit and imposed fine of Rs.15,000/-. He also directed that further licence may be issued after taking a fresh security 2 deposit. Respondent No. 1 was also ordered to be warned in writing to avoid irregularities in future, with a direction to keep copy of such warning on the file of respondent No.1. The District Supply Officer had ordered cancellation of respondent No.1’s licence and forfeiture of security deposit. Revision of respondent No.1 before the Deputy Commissioner also came to be rejected and he, therefore, approached the Hon’ble Minister. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister is not in tune with the facts. He pointed out from page 22 of the report of surprise inspection dated 7th May, 2005 by the Naib Tahsildar that in fact, 11 persons had been examined by the Naib Tahsildar, out of which seven persons had made statements against respondent No.1. The Minister has observed that out of eight persons, five had made statement in favour of respondent No. 1. It appears that respondent No.1 had alleged before the Naib Tahsildar that five persons, out of those examined, namely, Sanjay Kashiram Kaldate-petitioner, Deorao Vajale, Shyamrao Jamkar, Sadanand Mohod and Manik Nawalkar, had been demanding “Khandni” i.e. protection money from respondent No.1. The petitioner himself is Sarpanch, whereas Deorao is son of former Sarpanch. 3. The learned counsel for petitioner also pointed out that the Minister had observed that respondent No.1 had stated that goods for public distribution system became available only towards the end of the month and therefore, it was not possible to distribute the goods in the same month. The Minister had observed that this defence was not considered by the District Supply Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that such a defence was not raised by respondent No.1 before the District Supply Officer as may be 3 seen from the copy of reply annexed as Annexure R-2. He pointed out that such a contention had been raised in the revision before the Deputy Commissioner, who had, however, failed to notice it, since it was not included in the arguments advanced before the Deputy Commissioner. Whether it was the District Supply Officer or the Deputy Commissioner who failed to deal with the submission need not be decisive of the matter. Sum and substance is that the Minister noticed that a contention raised had not been dealt with, which is not far off the mark. 4. On behalf of respondent No.1 it has been pointed out first that respondent No.1 had at the very beginning stated before the Naib Tahsildar himself that petitioner and four others were demanding protection money from him. If these five persons are excluded from persons examined by Naib Tahsildar, only Mahadeo Kakad, Bhagwan Raut, Baldeo Vajale had a complaint about respondent No.1. Ganesh Raut, Chandurkar, Panjab, Omkar Prashalkar and Dilip Shriram had no grievance about distribution of kerosene and PDS goods. Thus, though the count by the Hon’ble Minister may not be accurate it is not that out of persons examined by Naib Tahsildar negligible number supported respondent No.1. In a society ridden with politics and rivalry, attempts to snatch a shop from one person and to have it allotted to another would not be uncommon and therefore, not much weight could be attached to a head count of supporters or detractors. 5. Respondent No.1 had explained that he distributes the goods after they are received in a particular month. In August, 2004, he admits having delayed filing of challan and explains that this was so because goods of July, 2004 were already in stock. 4 6. Page No.29 of the petition is a chart annexed by the Naib Tahsildar to his inspection report which itself shows that in the month of July goods were received on 28.07.2004 for distribution. It is not clear as to how, in these circumstances, that the goods could be distributed in the same month, unless persons would come to the shop, pay price and take the goods. In view of this it cannot be said that the Hon’ble Minister had recorded perverse findings or had been unjustifiably indulgent in giving one more opportunity to respondent No.1. Merely because another view was possible, the view taken by the Hon’ble Minister cannot be assailed. It is not shown that under any rules or circulars in similar circumstances, the only order that could be passed was revocation of licence. A writ Court cannot substitute its own conclusions for those of the authority concerned, unless it is shown that such conclusion could not at all be drawn or was perverse. 7. The petition is therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.