1 WRIT PETITION NO.: 4061 & 4062 OF 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.: 4061 OF 2009 *** Pratap S/o Shridharrao Kadam, Age: 41 years, Occu.: Agril. & Social Work, R/o Dharasur, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Minister for Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The District Supply Officer, Parbhani Dist. Parbhani. 3. Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. Ramrao S/o Bapurao Ranbaware, Age: 66 years, Occu.: Business, & Agri., R/o Dharasur, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ... RESPONDENTS *** WRIT PETITION NO.: 4062 OF 2009 Pratap S/o Shridharrao Kadam, Age: 41 years, Occu.: Agril. & Social Work, R/o Dharasur, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Minister for Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, 2 WRIT PETITION NO.: 4061 & 4062 OF 2009 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The District Supply Officer, Parbhani Dist. Parbhani. 3. Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. Uttam S/o Radhaji Kadam, Age: 66 years, Occu.: Business & Agri., R/o Dharasur, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ... RESPONDENTS. *** Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate h/f Mr. R. T. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. H. V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4. *** CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED:- 28th FEBRUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Advocate Shri A. B. Kale for Petitioners has contended that in impugned order, after finding that charges are proved, Honourable Minister has interfered and directed Respondent No.4 to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, forfeited the security deposit and restored kerosene licence. According to him, this is arbitrary and unwarranted use of jurisdiction. He is relying upon judgment of this Court in 3 WRIT PETITION NO.: 4061 & 4062 OF 2009 the case of "Sushilabai Manoharrao Kulkarni V/s Kachruappa S/o Laxmanappa Tamshete and others" reported in 2008 (1) Mh.L.J. 825 to substantiate his contention. 2. Mr. Patil has invited attention to Government Guidelines issued on 12th January, 1991 particularly paragraph 11 thereof to show that the malpractices are classified under three heads viz. the defects of minor nature, somewhat serious defects and serious defects. He points out that separate treatment and punishment is prescribed for these three types of lapses or defects. The instances which fall thereunder are also specified. He has relied upon sub-paragraph 2 of this paragraph 11 to urge that it gives discretion to Honourable Minister to interfere in appropriate circumstances. According to him, the petitioner happens to be Ex-Sarpanch and as present Respondent did not support election of petitioner, with the help of his colleagues managed to lodge false complaint. He emphasises that there were only six persons complaining against the shop while others have not found anything wrong with its working. 4 WRIT PETITION NO.: 4061 & 4062 OF 2009 He, therefore, requests the Court to maintain order of Honourable Minister. 3. With the assistance of respective counsel I have perused the papers. The guidelines issued on 12th November, 1991 are nothing but an effort on the part of State Government to maintain uniformity into the working of various Appellate and Revisional Authorities. The exercise of appellate powers and revisional powers by those authorities is under the provisions of the Regulations framed under Essential Commodities Act and those authorities, therefore, discharge statutory and quasi judicial functions. Hence, power available to them in that respect cannot be curtailed or controlled by such guidelines. 4. Moreover, in present facts the charges noticed are of selling kerosene at a higher rate and of distributing less quantity of kerosene per card. Third charge is not keeping shop open during prescribed hours. Even if one goes by the guidelines issued on 12th November, 1991 charge No.1 of selling kerosene at higher rate is a serious charge. 5. The judgment of learned Single Bench of 5 WRIT PETITION NO.: 4061 & 4062 OF 2009 this Court in the case of "Sushilabai Manoharrao Kulkarni V/s Kachruappa S/o Laxmanappa Tamshete and others" (supra) in similar situation found interference by Revisional Authority unwarranted. It is apparent that when charges are found to have been established and if proper punishment is imposed the lower authorities cannot be said to have acted either in excess of jurisdiction or arbitrarily. The Revisional Authority, therefore, could not have interfered in such matter. Here, though a specific finding has been recorded that action taken against shop of Respondent No.4 by lower authorities is just and proper, still thereafter the Honourable Minister has found it proper to restore the licence only because of request made by Respondent No.4 and with a view to give him one opportunity. 6. Today, while deciding writ petition No. 3801 of 2007 this Court has already found that such course of action is not sustainable. 7. Thus, for reasons recorded therein, and above, order dated 8th June, 2009 is quashed and set aside. Petition is allowed. No 6 WRIT PETITION NO.: 4061 & 4062 OF 2009 costs. 8. In view of final disposal of writ petitions, civil application No. 4934 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 4061 of 2009 and Civil Application No.5387 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.4062 of 2009 are also disposed of. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:-28/02/2011. ans/4061 7 WRIT PETITION NO.: 4061 & 4062 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NOs.: 4061 & 4062 OF 2009 Date of decision: 28th FEBRUARY, 2011. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. DHARMADHIKARI. Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No fair copy of the judgment? Whether this case involves a substantial ... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE