1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2902 OF 1994 Sow. Anita Avinash Mulavekar, Age 28 yrs., Occu. Fair Price Shop, R/o. Ram-Krushna-nagar, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad-Division, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ....Respondents. Shri. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 9th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 29.7.1994 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in case No. 94/SB/Desk/III/P. By this order, the revision under section 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 16.4.1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sailu has been rejected. 2. The petitioner was granted license to run the fair price shop. 2 However, for 5-6 months, when she was pregnant, she had authorized her near relative Shri. Vishnu Vithalrao Joshi to run the fair price shop. It seems that notice was issued to petitioner to show cause, as to why the fair price shop license should not be cancelled, as she had permitted said Vishnu Vithalrao Joshi to run the fair price shop without any authority. Upon issuance of such notice, the license of fair price shop was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sailu in exercise of his power under Rule 3 of the said Act. The petitioner preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner Aurangabad, which was decided on 29.7.1994. The revision petition was dismissed and the order of cancellation of the fair price shop license was maintained. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition, challenging both the orders dated 16.4.1994 and 29.7.1994. 3. The matter was admitted on 12.1.1998 and pending decision of the petition, interim relief is operating. As a result, the petitioner might be continuing to run the fair price shop. 4. It is not in dispute that if the petitioner was not in position to run the shop, she could authorize some other person to run the shop. Accordingly, from 1989 to 1991 her authorization to run shop in favour of Vishnu Vithalrao Joshi, was accepted by the Department. The only reason for cancellation of license is that subsequent to 1991 the authorization in the name of said Vishnu Vithalrao Joshi has not been 3 furnished. But, still it was found that he was running the shop. The petitioner has given an explanation that due to her pregnancy, she could not run the shop when inspection took place and show cause notice was issued. Non furnishing of authorization for a specific period due to some genuine difficulties cannot be a ground for cancellation of fair price shop license which is a drastic action. It is not disputed that it is permissible to run the fair price shop by an the licence holder through the authorised person. The same has been accepted in respect of the petitioner during 1989-91. Hence, the authorities ought to have considered the aspect and should have asked the petitioner to furnish the authorization in the name of Shri. Vishnu Vithalrao Joshi. The defect was curable and the petitioner could have been provided an opportunity to furnish such authorization. The authorities below were, therefore, wrong in cancelling the license of fair price shop. Therefore, the orders impugned in this petition cannot be sustained. 5. In the result, the instant writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 16.4.1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sailu and the order dated 29.7.1994 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "C" with no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp2902.94