1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6766 OF 2009 M/s Jadhav Agencies Through its Partners 1 Abasaheb s/o Rustumrao Kharat age 56 years, occ. agriculture r/o Rajur, Tq. Bhokardan Dist. Jalna. 2 Pratap s/o Abasaheb Kharat age 25 years, occ. agriculture r/o Rajur, Tq. Bhokardan Dist. Jalna. 3 Chandrakalabai w/o Abasaheb Kharat age 50 years, occ. agriculture r/o Rajur, Tq. Bhokardan Dist. Jalna. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra 2 The Minister Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 3 Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad. 4 The District Supply Officer Jalna. 5 The District Supply Officer 2 Aurangabad 6 Kacharu s/o Raibhan Jadhav age 58 years, occ. business r/o Trimurti Bhavan, Plot no. 22 Town Centre, Cidco, Aurangabad. Dist. Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate holding for Mr. R.L. Kute, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.B. Patil, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 5. Mrs. Sadhana Jadhav, Advocate for respondent no. 6. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 4 th MAY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Petitioners herein are raising exception to the order passed by the Minister, Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mumbai on 12-10-2009 thereby quashing and setting aside order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad on 3-1-2009. The learned Minister also 3 at the same time directed that the names of respondent no. 3 to 5 be deleted from the lincence. 4 According to the petitioners, respondent no. 6 was granted authorisation / licence by the licensing authority to deal with the essential commodities. He entered into partnership with the petitioners herein and executed deed of partnership in that behalf. Under the deed of partnership, respondent no. 6 was to retain 5% of the share whereas petitioners herein were entitled to 95% of the share. Authorisation also appears to have been issued by respondent no. 6 in favour of petitioner no.1 for the purpose of running business under the licence issued by the State officials. It further transpires that respondent no. 6 informed the District Supply Officer that due to his personal difficulties he is not in a position to run the business and urged him to stop supply of essential commodities. Taking cognizance of the communication made by respondent no. 6, the District Supply Officer in view of order passed on 5-4-2006 issued direction to suspend the supply of essential commodities to the licensee. Order passed by the District Supply Officer was subjected to challenge by presenting appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. The Deputy Commissioner, after considering the contentions raised by the petitioners 4 herein had allowed the appeal and further remitted the matter back to the District Supply Officer. After remand of the matter, the District Supply Officer allowed the application presented by the petitioners and permitted them to run the business on the basis of licence under the alleged partnership deed and subject to decision that would be rendered by the civil court. Order passed by the District Supply Officer was subjected to challenge before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad by presenting appeal by respondent no. 6. Appellate authority also confirmed the order passed by the District Supply Officer. Respondent no. 6 approached the Minister by presenting revision application which was allowed by the Minister and the order impugned in the instant petition has been passed on 12-10-2009. 5 I have perused the order passed by the learned Minister. I have heard arguments advanced by respective counsel appearing for the parties. It is not controverted that the lience was initially issued in the name of respondent no. 6. It also transpires that respondent no. 6 has entered into partnership with the petitioners herein. There is, however, dispute as regards the terms stated in the partnership deed executed on 31-5-2003. The issue that cropps up for consideration in the matter is whether it is permissible for respondent no. 6 to enter into partnership with the petitioners so as to deal 5 with the licence issued bythe State Government under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and that too without any consent of the issuing authority. If at all such a course as adopted in the matter is permissible, the question arises as to whether any procedure is prescribed in that behalf and whether such a procedure as prescribed by the State Government is adhered to. Another issue that crops up is as to whether respondent no. 6 can issue authorisation in favour of any other persons to run the licence on his behalf without consent of the issuing authority and as to whether any procedure is prescribed in that behalf by the State Government and whether such a procedure is adhered to in the instant matter. These questions are required to be dealt with by the District Supply Officer. The issuing authority in respect of licence under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act i.e. the District Supply Officer has to deal with the questions after considering the rival contentions and on consideration of the policy prescribed in that behalf by the State Government. So far as the questions raised in the matter in respect of validity of the deed of partnership so also validity of the letter of authorisation issued by respondent no. 6 is concerned, the parties are free to address their grievance and seek adjudication of the dispute from the appropriate forum prescribed under the law. Considering all these facts as well, as the issue involved in the matter 6 being in respect of running of business on the basis of authorisation / licence issued under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, it would be appropriate for the District Supply Officer to address these issues and render decision thereon. The District Supply Officer shall after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, render his decision within two months from today. Until the District Supply Officer renders his decision, the order of status quo issued by this court shall remain operative. The order passed by the Minister stands modified to that extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp6766.09.odt