1 wp9922.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9922 OF 2010 Dnyanoba S/o Govindrao Mundhe ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, A. G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent no.5. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 25TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocates Mr. Jadhavar for petitioner, Mr. Mundhe for respondent no.5 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4 finally. 2. The impugned order of Hon'ble Minister dated 18th August, 2010 permitting the respondent no.5 to resume working of his fair price shop has been stayed by this Court on 19th October, 2010. As a result, shop is not functioning today. 3. Advocate Mr. Jadhavar argues that because of serious lapses noticed the opportunity to reopen shop could not have been 2 wp9922.10 given. He states that the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister does not contain any reason as such for grant of such opportunity. 4. Advocate Mr. Mundhe as also the learned A.G.P. support the impugned order. Advocate Mr. Mundhe points out that basic order passed by the D.S.O. on 21.01.2009 itself did not contain appropriate reasons and in absence of material sufficient to cancel the authorization, punishment was inflicted. He further states that Hon'ble Minister has also found that during alleged inspection, necessary inspection form was not filled in, identity of card holder was not established and petitioner was not given due opportunity. In this circumstances, according to him, there is no jurisdictional error or perversity. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused the relevant papers. It appears that on 11.07.2008, the S.D.O. after inspection found certain irregularities and hence, on 28.07.2008 a show-cause notice was served upon the respondent no.5. That show-cause notice was replied by him on 11.08.2008. It appears that in reply, he pointed out his harassment and persecution. He denied his involvement in any irregularity or malpractice and given reason of private dispute as ground on which false complaints were being made repeatedly. Perusal of the 3 wp9922.10 order dated 21.01.2009 shows that after mentioning necessary facts and this reply, only reason given by D.S.O. is that said reply was found not proper by him. 6. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Minister reveals that though initially the Hon'ble Minister has found that procedure followed was faulty and there was no clinching material to inflict the respondent no.5, later on more specific reasons are assigned. It is found that before implicating such punishment of cancellation of authorization, the respondent no.5 was not given due opportunity, inspection form was not filled in at the time of inspection and even identity of the card holders was not established. These reasons assigned by the Hon'ble Minister assume importance in view of the defence of the present respondent no.5 in his reply to show cause notice. He has denied any malpractice and pointed out harassment due to personal enmity. 7. But then it can not be forgotten there was an enquiry by independent Government authority and on the strength of inspection, charges were framed. Hence, if the Minister found procedure during hearing defective, that by itself is not sufficient to order restoration of either the authorization or fair price shop. The 4 wp9922.10 proper enquiry by competent authority in this respect could have been ordered and or then the said authority could have been directed to extend proper opportunity to all parties. 8. I therefore find the impugned order dated 18.08.2010 straight way restoring the authorization of fair price shop of respondent no.5 unsustainable. Same is quashed and set aside. 9. Impugned order dated 21.01.2009 passed by the respondent no.4 is also quashed and set aside. The petitioner as also respondent no.5 shall appear before the respondent no.4 on 23rd May, 2011 and the said authority shall after hearing the respective parties and/or after holding such enquiry as it may deem fit proceed to pass appropriate orders about restoration of authorization of fair price shop of the respondent no.5. The said orders shall be passed as early as possible and in any case by 16th August, 2011. 10. Needless to mention that till then the present position in relation to said shop shall continue. In other words, if the D.S.O. finds explanation tendered by respondent no.5 satisfactory, appropriate orders in his favour can be passed but till then the interim order passed by this Court on 19th October, 2010 shall hold 5 wp9922.10 field. 11. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp9922.10