1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3841 OF 2008 Shri Piroji Pundlik Shingade Petitioner vs. 1. The Minister, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection & ors. Respondents Mr.S.G.Kudle for the petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardoza, AGP for respondents 1 to 3. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 14th July, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.S.G.Kudle, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Cardoza, the learned AGP for respondents 1 to 3. 2. The licence in respect of Fair Price Shop given to respondent no.4 was suspended by the District Supply Officer-respondent no.3 on the allegation of misappropriation of foodgrains. The respondent no.4 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (supply), Pune Division, Pune. Respondent no.4’s appeal came to be dismissed and thereafter revision came to be filed before the Hon’ble Minister for Food and Civil Supplies. By the impugned order, the Hon’ble Minister allowed respondent no.4’s revision partly. The orders of respondent nos. 3 and 2 are set aside and penalty of 2 Rs.10,000/- was imposed on respondent no.4 in addition to forfeiture of entire deposit amount. The Hon’ble Minister also directed enquiry regarding alleged misappropriation of the foodgrains through respondent no.3 and further directed that in the event it is found that respondent no.4 has committed misappropriation of the foodgrains, the amount at the market rate be recovered from him. The Hon’ble Minister passed impugned order as he found, after perusal of the record that respondent no.3 did not verify regarding deficiency of the foodgrains. 3. The District Supply Officer did not cancel the licence of the respondent no.4’s Fair Price Shop and the same was merely suspended. The Hon’ble Minister recorded finding that the deficiency of the foodgrains was not verified by respondent no.1 before suspending the licence. Inspite of this finding, penalty of Rs.10,000/- and forfeiture of the deposit has been imposed on respondent no.4. In addition to this, the enquiry was directed against respondent no.4 with further direction that if it is revealed in the enquiry that respondent no.4 has misappropriated the foodgrains, then in that case, the amount at the market rate be recovered. The Hon’ble Minister in paragraph 6 of the operative of the order also has given warning to the respondent no.4 that it will not commit such mistakes in 3 future. 4. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the aforesaid petition. However, I direct the respondent no.3 to complete the enquiry and take decision as contemplated in clause 5 of the operative part of the impugned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 5. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of accordingly. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]