1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11436 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11436 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Mukhedkar for the Petitioner, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Advocate Mrs. Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. 2. Contention is, the Appellate Authority has while allowing appeal and remanding the matter back, passed an order which has the effect of discontinuing the fair price shop of petitioner. It is pointed out that by order dated 25th January, 2010 the fair price shop was restored after imposing highest possible punishment as per the policy decision of the Government in this respect. It is urged that the lapses noticed are not of grave nature and hence the punishment of forfeiture of security deposit is the highest punishment which has been inflicted. 3. Learned A.G.P. and Advocate Mrs. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11436 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Kulkarni are opposing the petition. Learned A.G.P. states that after hearing petitioner the order dated 25th January, 2010 passed by District Supply Officer is found unsustainable and hence same is quashed and set aside. According to Advocate Mrs. Kulkarni, the petitioner has got remedy of approaching the Government in revision against the said order and in any case on merits no interference is warranted as the order dated 25th January, 2010 looks into subsequent inspections and then restores the shop of petitioner. 4. Looking to the nature of controversy and as Appellate Authority had directed the District Supply Officer to decide the matter finally within 45 days after remand, I am not inclined to consider the objection about availability of alternate remedy in this case. This Court has on 20th of December, 2010 directed parties to maintain status-quo 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11436 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. and hence according to the petitioner and learned A.G.P. present petitioner is running the fair price shop. 5. Perusal of order dated 25th January, 2010 reveals that it is because of inspections conducted after 19th November, 2005 that the fair price shop of the petitioner has been restored. The first order in this respect was passed on 25th August, 2005 whereby the authorisation in favour of the petitioner was suspended and that was for lapses and irregularities noticed prior to 25th August, 2055. While considering that suspension and matter further, how inspections conducted lateron are relevant is not apparent. It is obvious that for irrelevant reasons the District Supply Officer had on 25th January, 2010 restored the fair price shop. 6. I, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the order of remand passed by Respondent 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11436 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. No.2. The said authority had passed the orders after hearing present petitioner and the view is not erroneous or perverse. There is no jurisdictional error. Hence, petition is dismissed. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:08/04/2011. ans/11436