1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2581 OF 2010 (Rajendra S. Kanadje & Anr. vs. The District Supply Officer, Buldhana & Ors.) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2588 OF 2010 (Rajendra S. Kanadje & Anr. vs. The District Supply Officer, Buldhana & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 05, 2010. Heard Shri Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sonare and Jaiswal, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 in respective writ petitions and Shri Puri, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. The controversy needs to be considered in the light of earlier orders dated 23.02.2010 in Writ Petition No. 361 and dated 26.02.2010 in Writ Petition No. 360 of 2010. Those writ petitions were filed by present Respondent No. 3, making a grievance that his shop was being kept closed under guise of suspending his license without specifying any time limit and though this Court twice in its earlier orders pointed out necessity of prescription of such time limit in such orders of suspension, those orders were not being obeyed. In these orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 360/2010 and 361/2010, this Court noticed that the respondents were not in a position to justify their omission to specify time 2 limit once again. This Court, therefore, quashed and set aside the orders of suspension impugned therein and gave liberty to present respondents No. 1 & 2 to take cognizance of complaints, if any, against the shop of the petitioners in accordance with law. Because of this omission and shop of the petitioners there was kept closed from 15.01.2008, this Court directed Respondent No. 3 in those writ petitions to pay total compensation of Rs.2,000/- to said petitioner. The present petitioners have then filed with a grievance that that the petitioner (present respondent No. 3) has thereafter been permitted to open his fair price shop and retail kerosene outlet but no action whatsoever has been taken on the basis of complaints. Shri Kalwaghe, learned counsel states that the authorities have also not stated that they have no complaints and, therefore, no action is necessary. The learned AGPs state the orders of this Court dated 23.02.2010 and 26.02.2010 have been only implemented. According to them, there are no fresh complaints against the shop of Respondent No. 3. Shri Puri, learned counsel in present matters has contended that the petitioners lack locus to maintain such petition and it is Respondents No. 1 & 2 to take appropriate action. According to him, Respondents No. 1 & 2 have only obeyed the orders dated 23.02.2010 and 26.02.2010 and they have not foreclosed any action. It is apparent that locus of present petitioners 3 in the matter is unnecessary. This Court has set aside the earlier orders of suspension only because there was no time limit specified in it. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have not come up with a case that the closure of shop of Respondent No. 3 from 15.01.2008 is found to be sufficient punishment by them to Respondent No. 3 in the matter. They had passed fresh orders of suspension which were impugned in Writ Petition Nos. 360/2010 and 361 of 2010 because they had some material with them. Respondents No. 1 & 2, therefore, have to take clear stand and they cannot be heard saying that they have obeyed the orders of the Court. The reply filed by Respondent No. 1 before this Court does not disclose any reason as to why further action on complaints has not been taken so far. It is also apparent that what action is to be taken by Respondent No.1 on such complaints in the matter is to be decided by Respondent No.1 and this Court has not specified any particular course of action. Both the shops of Respondent No. 3 are functioning from March 2010 and that period of more than four months has expired but Respondent No. 1 has not taken any further action in the matter. In these circumstances, I find that interest of justice can be met with by directing Respondent No. 1 to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. If any action is to be taken to the prejudice of Respondent No. 3, needless to mention that Respondent No. 3 shall 4 be given necessary opportunity of hearing and thereafter only the orders will be passed. Respondent No. 1 in present matter was earlier required to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- in earlier writ petitions. The said Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- per writ petition to present petitioners by 31st August 2010. The orders be communicated to the Commissioner, Civil Supply, in-charge of Buldhana District for taking further appropriate action. If any actions are required to be initiated, the same be taken by 15th September 2010. Writ Petitions are disposed of. Rule accordingly. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE *GS.