1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3214 OF 2011 (Santosh Sahebrao Nikalje vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S. Saoji, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.V. Bhoyar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. --------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 25, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 15/2/2011 passed by the Hon’ble Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra whereby the Revision Application filed by the respondent no.5 herein came to be allowed and the retail kerosene licence of the respondent no.5 came to be restored by imposing fine of Rs.5,000/- and forfeiting the licence fee. The respondent no.5 was holding retail 2 kerosene licence which he was operating at Shipur, District Buldhana. On a complaint being made by Sarpanch and 36 others of the said village, action was initiated against the respondent no.5. The allegations against the respondent no.5 were to the following effect : 1) At the time of inspection, the respondent no.5 was not present in his shop, 2) Receipt book not maintained, 3) As per statements of card holders, the respondent no.5 is not taking quantity of kerosene as fixed by the State. 4) Selling kerosene at the higher rate of Rs.14/- 5) The Stock Register was not properly maintained. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldhana passed an order on 30/1/2006 holding that the said charges were proved against the respondent no.5 and accordingly cancelled the licence of the respondent no.5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30/1/2006, the respondent no.5 preferred an Appeal, the same came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner 3 (Supplies) by order dated 28/4/2006, against which the respondent no.5 filed a Revision before the then Hon’ble Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra which also came to be dismissed by order dated 30/1/2008. The respondent no.5 thereafter preferred Writ Petition No. 914/2008 before this Court. The same was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and by order dated 14/7/2008, the said writ petition came to be partly allowed and the directions were issued to the Revisional Authority in the following terms : “W.P. Is partly allowed. Impugned orders are confirmed. However, respondent no.1 is directed to consider whether it is necessary to impose the ultimate punishment of cancellation of licence, or in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same can be reduced. Proceedings are remitted for fresh examination on that aspect upon hearing the petition. This may be done within 4 months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.” It is pursuant to the said directions that the respondent no.1 considered the Revision 4 Application de novo and though having reached a conclusion that the respondent no.5 was selling kerosene at a higher price than prescribed by the Government as also not using proper weight, the Revisional Authority thought it fit to partly allow the said Revision Application. The Revisional Authority imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- and directed forfeiture of entire licence fee deposit of the respondent no.5 to the State. In para 5, the Revisional Authority directed the District Supply Officer to issue a caution to the respondent no.5 not to commit and repeat the same mistakes in future. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that in view of the charges having been proved against the respondent no.5, the Revisional Authority had erred in allowing the Revision partly and restoring the licence of the respondent no.5 on the terms and conditions as mentioned in the impugned order dated 15/2/2011. As indicated above, the said Revision Application was considered in the context of the directions issued by this Court as contained in the order dated 14/7/2008. The Revisional Authority in 5 the facts and circumstances of the case, thought it fit to impose the punishment of fine of Rs.5,000/- and the forfeiture of the licence fee deposit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the impugned order dated 15/2/2011, the respondent no.5 has re-commenced the retail business in kerosene. In my view, considering the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, the order passed in the Revision whereby the Revision has been partly allowed, in my view, does not call for any interdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj