1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.: 3109 OF 2009 *** 1. Shri Ramrao S/o Shrirangrao Argade, Age 35 yrs., Occ. Agri., 2. Shri Laxman Marotrao Shingare, Age 38 yrs., occ. Agri., 3. Ramrao S/o Dashratrao Dhage, Age 40 yrs., Occ. Agri. 4. Munjaji S/o Vishwanath Rasal, Age 38 yrs., Occ.: Agri. 5. Murlidhar S/o Bajirao Dhage, Age: 42 yrs.l, Occ. Agri., All R/o Pimpalgaon Thombre, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. Through Secretary, Food, Civil Suppliers and Consumer Protection Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, (Copy to be served on G.P. High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad). 2. The Hon'ble Minister, Food, Civil Suppliers and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 3. The District Supply Officer, Parbhani. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, (Civil Supply), Aurangabad. 2 5. Laxmi Magaswargiya Gramin Mahila Gruha Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha through Smt. Laxmibai, W/o Kishanrao Thenge, R/o Pimpalgaon Thombre, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. ... RESPONDENTS *** Mr. M. M. Patil, Advocate (Beedkar) for the Petitioners. Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. M. P. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.5. *** CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED:­ 28th FEBRUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Patil for the Petitioners, Advocate Mr. Kale for Respondent No.5 and learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. The petitioner before this Court is a villager and he was Respondent No.6 in Revision filed by present Respondent No.5 before Respondent No.1. That revision has been allowed on 25th February, 2009. 3. The Honourable Minister though found that though various lapses and faults in the working of the fair price shop are proved, only with a view to give one opportunity, the Respondent No.1 Minister has interfered with, fine of Rs.15,000/­ has been imposed and the 3 authorisation of fair price shop has been restored. 4. Shri Patil has contended that interference by Honourable Minister is unwarranted and arbitrary. Learned A.G.P. as also Advocate Mr. Kale have supported the impugned order. 5. In a similar situation, today after considering identical arguments I have decided writ petition No.3801 of 2007. In the light of reasons recorded therein, present writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 25th February, 2009 passed by Respondent No.1 are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:­28/02/2011. ans/3109 4 WRIT PETITION NO.: 3109 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