1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Letters Patent Appeal No.164 Of 2010 In Writ Petition No.3010 Of 2009 Shobha wd/o Balwantrao Pawar.. Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for appellant Shri. S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1,2 and 3. Shri. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for respondent No.4. -------- With Letters Patent Appeal No.172 Of 2010 In Writ Petition No.4760 Of 2009 Gorakh S/o Madhu Gadkar. ... Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. 2 -------- Shri. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for appellant Shri. S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1,2 and 3. Shri. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for respondent No.4. -------- With Letters Patent Appeal Stamp No.16569/2010 In Writ Petition No.4760 Of 2009 Shobha wd/o Balwantrao Pawar. .. Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for appellant Shri. S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1,2 and 3. Shri. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for respondent No.4. -------- 3 CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. Date on which order reserved : 12th October 2010 Date on which order pronounced : 14th October 2010. ORDER (PER NARESH H PATIL, J.): 1) These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 8th April 2010 delivered by the learned Single Judge in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.4760 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.3010 Of 2009, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2) The appellants were petitioners before learned Single Judge aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection. The consequent fall out of the 4 order was that the fair price shop which was being allotted to the appellant Gorakh Gadkar who was even penalised monetarily. The appellant – Smt. Shobha Pawar who was allotted a fair price shop after cancellation of the fair price shop of appellant Gorakh Gadkar is also aggrieved by the order. 3) The facts of the case in detail have been narrated by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order impugned herein. 4) In substance, the learned counsel Shri. S.B. Taleker appearing for the appellant in LPA No.172 of 2010 submitted that the show cause notice dated 7th August 2003,under which the inquiry was conducted, and the fair price shop was cancelled did 5 not refer to any CID enquiry conducted in respect of allegations levelled against around 138 fair price shop licence holders including the appellant – Gorakh. The appellant was not provided with any record in respect of the enquiry conducted by the authorities including the CID officials. The order which was passed by the District Supply Officer in the year 2003 was unreasoned one. Principles of natural Justice were violated in this case which had caused serious prejudice to the appellant. There are no allegations made against the appellant that he was involved in black marketing of essential commodities which were being distributed through the fair price shop which was initially allotted in his favour. The counsel, therefore, submitted that imposition of 6 penalty was passed on ‘no evidence’. The said order being unreasonable is required to be quashed and set aside. 5) The learned counsel Shri. S.R. Barlinge appearing for the appellant in LPA No.164 of 2010 Smt. Shobha Pawar submitted that, the appellant Shobha Pawar applied against an advertisement issued after the fair price shop of appellant Gorakh Gadkar was cancelled. The shop was allotted to her which cannot be cancelled for restoration the same to the appellant Gorakh Gadkar (LPA No.172 of 2010). The order of penalty passed by the Hon'ble Minster, according to the counsel, was invited by the appellant Gorakh Gadkar which fact has been approved even by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent 7 Appeal was filed belatedly by Gorakh Gadkar after the appeal was preferred by Shobha Pawar. This could also demonstrate that the appellant Gorakh Gadkar was not seriously aggrieved by the order of imposition of penalty by the Hon’ble Minister and the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant Shobha Pawar is a widow in whose favour the shop was permanently allotted. She was validly selected through the proclamation issued on 27-10-2003. The appellant Shobha had also filed an application before the Hon’ble Minister while the proceedings were disposed of but the same was not referred by the learned Single Judge. In the submission of the counsel, the Hon’ble Minister had exercised powers of review and not of revision. In 8 the facts of the case the Hon’ble Minister and the learned Single Judge committed error in allowing the plea of appellant Gorakh Gadkar to permit him to run fair price shop which was being run by Mrs. Shobha Pawar. 6) The learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri. S.D. Kaldate supported the orders passed by the Hon’ble Minister and the learned Single Judge. In the submission of the learned AGP, the Hon’ble Minister has exercised revisional powers under the order dated 14th March 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: B.R. Gavai, J.) of the High Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.7769 of 2005. 9 7) We have perused the record placed before us, the proceedings of the writ petitions, the relevant orders passed by the authorities, the orders passed by the Hon’ble Minister and the learned Single Judge of this Court. 8) It is a matter of record that the fair price shop was allotted in favour of Smt. Shobha Pawar under a proclamation after the fair price shop licence of Gorakh Gadkar was cancelled. The District Supply Officer had observed in the order that the said allotment is subject to the order passed by the Court. The learned counsel Shri. Barlinge interpreted the order to mean that the allotment was subject to criminal proceedings initiated against Gorakh Gadkar and not the proceedings 10 pending before the authorities. We are not convinced with the submissions of the learned counsel. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader, on instructions, stated that on the basis of the information received by the authorities, CID enquiry was initiated against more than 125 licence holders in respect of violation of conditions of the licence on various grounds. The appellant Gorakh Gadkar was also one of those licence holders who was involved in the same and, therefore, the proceedings were initiated. 9) We have perused the order dated 14th March 2008 passed in Writ Petition No.7769 of 2005 by the learned Single Judge Judge. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the order read thus : 11 “2. In pursuance of the order passed by this court, the affidavit has been filed by the Section Officer, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya Mumbai, dated 16th February 2008. It is stated in the said affidavit that in view of the further developments,the Revisional Authority will reconsider the case of the present appellant in revision and necessary orders would be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the present applicant. 4. It is needless to state that prior to the passing of the order, the Revisional Authority to give an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties.” 10) The Hon’ble Minister in para 10 of the order dated 2nd March 2009 has observed that, on request made by the petitioner i.e. Gorakh Gadkar an opportunity is being provided and by observing so the penalty was calculated and he was directed to deposit Rs.1,92,000/- in ten equal installments. Strictly speaking the issue of CID inquiry does not find place in the 12 show cause notice issued to the appellant Gorakh Gadkar on 7-8-2003. But along with the deficiencies pointed out in the show cause notice the authorities have also considered initiation of CID enquiry against many such licence holders including appellant Gorakh Gadkar. From the record and the facts of the case in its entirety it transpires that the authorities took serious view of the matter as fair price shops allotted in the villages deal with distribution of essential commodities at controlled price to the villagers. Considering the grim economic conditions and limited resources at the disposal of the villagers it is very essential to regulate the distribution of essential commodities through these licensed shop holders. Violation of essential conditions 13 and involvement in the act which is detrimental to the interests of the villagers is required to be taken seriously. Accordingly the authorities had initiated inquiries and taken action. Each case will have to be judged and decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of its own and accordingly the present case was also considered by the learned Single Judge. 11) We find that the learned Single judge had dealt with the issues reasonably and had taken a view which, in the facts of the case, could not be termed to be patently illegal, perverse and against the record. In para 14 of the order the learned Single Judge observed that, the advertisement under which Shobha Pawar was 14 selected and allotted fair price shop was with warning and rider subject to outcome of Court cases, the same could not be considered to be of permanent nature. 12) In the facts of the case we do not find that the Hon’ble Minister committed any serious illegality in imposing penalty on the appellant Gorakh Gadkar. 13) In support of his submissions the learned counsel Shri. S.B. Talekar has placed reliance on the following reported judgments. B.K. Muniraju v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 4 SCC 451. Guljar Singh v. Deputy Director (Consolidation),(2009) 12 SCC 590. 15 In support of his submissions the learned counsel Shri. S.R. Barlinge has placed reliance on the following reported judgments. Ramprasad Ramchandra Chavan vs State of Maharashtra, 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 82. We have perused the judgments cited supra. 14) In the light of the observations made by us, as above, no interference is warranted in the Letters Patent Appeals. 15) The Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ lpa.164.10