1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5864/2010 [RAJUSINGH PITARAM CHAVHAN ..VS.. STATE & ORS] AND WRIT PETITION NO.5865/2010 [RAJUSINGH PITARAM CHAVHAN ..VS..STATE & ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Mirza, advocate for petitioners Mrs. Bodade, AGP for respondent no.1 to 3 Shri R.J. Shinde, advocate for respondent no.4 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : MARCH 25, 2011. Heard. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no.3 had not granted any opportunity to the petitioner before cancelling his licence and the learned Minister also illegally reversed the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Supply). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was punished on the basis of the same complaint of the villagers dated 30.1.2009 and his deposit was confiscated. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been penalised again by cancelling his licence on the basis of the same complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.4/ complaint could not have been filed a revision before the respondent no.1. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the 2 respondent no.1 to 3 submitted on the basis of the affidavit filed in reply that the petitioner was duly served with a show cause notice by the District Supply Officer on 14.10.2009 and was granted an opportunity to file his explanation. The petitioner had accordingly filed his reply on 21.10.2009. According to the learned AGP since the District Supply Officer, did not find any merit in the reply filed by the petitioner and found that the allegations made against the petitioner were true, had rightly cancelled his licence by the order dated 7.11.2009. It is then submitted on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3 that the cancellation of the licence by the impugned order dated 7.11.2009 was after making a fresh enquiry and inspection of the premises in question and was not based on the same complaint for which the petitioner was penalized by the order dated 30.1.2009. It is lastly submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 to 3 that the respondent no.1 observed that the allegations against the petitioner were proved and the Assistant Commissioner could not have reversed the findings recorded by the District Supply Officer on the ground that the District Supply Officer had not granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Shri Shinde, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 also supported the order passed by the respondent no.1 on 15.10.2010 and submitted that inspite of grant of opportunity to the petitioner to mend his ways he committed the same irregularities and hence the impugned 3 order passed by the Minister on 15.10.2010 is just and proper. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the District Supply Officer had rightly cancelled the licence of the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the District Supply Officer after granting an opportunity to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner – respondent no.2 however, erroneously set aside the order passed by the District Supply Officer on the ground that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity before the said authority. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was rightly set aside by the respondent no.1 as according to the respondent no.1 the order passed by the District Supply Officer was just and proper and was based on the proper enquiry conducted by the District Supply Officer. The respondent no.1 observed that the petitioner had committed irregularities and when opportunity was granted to him to mend his ways, it was necessary for him to improve, but the petitioner did not change his ways. The respondent no.1 therefore, rightly reversed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, thereby confirming the order passed by the District Supply Officer. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was penalised twice on the basis of the same complaint appears to be incorrect as the petitioner has not raised this ground in the revision application filed before the 4 respondent no.2. Moreover, it is amply clear from the record that the impugned order dated 7.1.2009 was passed by the District Supply Officer on the basis of a fresh enquiry on the complaints of the villagers. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 did not have a right to file an appeal before the respondent no.1 is also liable to be rejected as the respondent no.1 was the complainant before the District Supply Officer and on the basis of the complaint made by respondent no.4, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Since the petition is devoid of merits, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP