1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8706 OF 2009 Shri Janmiya Abdul Majid age 70 years, occ. business r/o Dongargaon, Tq. Naigaon Dist. Nanded. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra 2 The Sub-Divisional Officer Degloor, Dist. Nanded. 3 The Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad. 4 Shri Mainoddin Yadulla Sayyad occ. agril r/o Dongargaon,Tq. Naigaon Dist. Nanded. 5 The District Supply Officer Nanded, Dist. Nanded. .. RRESPONDENTS Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, AGP for the State. Mr. Nagarkar, Advocate for respondent no. 4. ===== 2 CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 12th APRIL, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Order passed by the Minister (Food and Civil Supply) dt. 16-10-2009 is subject matter of challenge in this petition. It is contended by the petitioner that he has been granted authorisation to run fair price shop at village Dongargaon, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. As a result of certain complaints received against the petitioner / fair price shop owner, licence to run the shop was put under suspension by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor / respondent no. 2 in view of order passed on 18-3-2006. As the enquiry was kept pending for about two months, the petitioner presented appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. Appeal was considered by the appellate authority and order was passed on 1-8-2008 directing the Sub- Divisional Officer, Degloor to complete the enquiry and in the meantime, it 3 was also directed to resume supply for the purpose of distribution in favour of the petitioner / fair price shop owner. Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad was subjected to challenge before the State Government by respondent no. 4. However, appeal came to be dismissed by the State Government on 19-11-2008. Respondent no. 4 again preferred review application to the State Government which was entertained by the Minister (Food and Civil Supply) and in exercise of powers conferred on the authority, the review petition was allowed and the initial order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor on 18-3-2006 came to be confirmed. Petitioner herein is raising exception of the order passed by the State Government in exercise of review jurisdiction conferred on the authority. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the power to review the order does not vest with the State Government as there is no specific provision in that regard. Learned counsel representing the respondents are unable to point out any provision empowering the State Government to exercise review jurisdiction. The power to review the order passed by the State Government is available so far as it relates to orders passed under the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Licensing Act. 4 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to place reliance on the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in the matter of Sadichha Mahila Mandal vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 528 and contends that the powers to review the order does not vest with the State Government. On perusal of the judgment, it transpires that there is no provision empowering the State Government to review the said order. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the State Government is without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. It is pointed out that in view of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aurangabad on 1-8-2008, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor is supposed to conduct enquiry and render appropriate decision. While quashing the order passed by the State Government on 16-10-2009, it is hereby directed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor to continue with the enquiry as directed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor shall enquire into the matter and after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and render decision in the matter within three months from today. Direction contained in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aurangabad to resume supply of essential commodities to the fair price shop owner shall, however, remain suspended and the further course of action shall be subject to final outcome of the enquiry 5 proceedings. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE dyb/wp8706.09.odt