1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5072 OF 2009 Digambar s/o Gopalrao Salunke, Age 40 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Patoda (Bk.), Taluka Biloli, District Nanded. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary in the Department of Food, Supply Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor, District Nanded. 4. The Tahsildar, Dharmabad, District Nanded. 5. Sheshrao s/o Sambhaji Wankhede, Age 42 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Patoda (Bk.), Taluka Biloli, District Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Gajanan G. Kadam, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. S.D. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4 Shri U.B. Bilolikar, Advocate for respondent No.5 ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With 2 the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. The grant of licence or accepting requests made by respondent No.5 by the learned Minister, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, dated 1.7.2009 is questioned. During the course of submissions, Mr. Bilolikar, learned counsel representing the respondent No.5 accepts that no hearing was given to the petitioner and indeed already application for condoning delay was rejected by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Supply on 3.4.2007. 3. The allegations against respondent No.5 are, for the period from 1992 to 1999, the foodgrains were not distributed to the legitimate card-holders. Consequently, in the year 1996, the shop licence was directed to be terminated. The Deputy Commissioner, Supply, for the year 1997, directed continuation of the shop which was accordingly accorded by virtue of order dated 15.12.1998. The respondent No.5 did not maintain proper records of distribution of foodgrains. He was collecting extraneous consideration from the needy persons for issuance of renewed ration cards or new ration cards. These aspects probably were lost track by the learned Minister while recording the order under challenge. The petitioner herein was not heard. Slapping of Rs.15,000/- as a fine for allowing the licence to 3 extend beyond the period of more than six years by itself is unconceivable. The lapses on the part of respondent No.5 though having accepted by the learned Minister, which was indeed a second occasion, of such fallacious activities, he, as stated earlier, slapped Rs.15,000/- and renewed the licence. Such exercise is uncalled for. However, with all said and done, the order of learned Minister, subject of challenge, is quashed. The learned Deputy Supply Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer), Degloor to cause fresh enquiry into the matter including to decide eligibility of respondent No.5 to continue with the licence. It will be certainly in the light of allegations made and representations hurled by the petitioner herein. Such exercise to be done within a period of six months. The licence shall not be continued with the respondent No.5. Writ Petition is allowed to the extent as above. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. Record be sent back immediately. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE