-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.5444 of 2007 Smt.Rajashree Basavraj Bawi ..Petitioner vs. 1. The Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection and others ..Respondents Shri S.G.Kudale for petitioner. Shri S.K.Chinchalikar, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri A.N.Mulla for respondent no.3. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 15th January, 2008 15th January, 2008 15th January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. While it is true that there is no right in the petitioner to claim a particular quota or number of units, what is really in issue and goes to the root of the case is the interest of the card holders. 3. Respondent no.3 had approached the Minister of Food and Civil Supplies, State of Maharashtra and filed the revision application. He challenged the order passed on 20th October, 2005 of the Appellate Authority which confirms -2- the order impugned before the Appellate Authority. That is the order cancelling the licence of respondent no.3. It is admitted position that the criminal case against respondent no.3 is pending. The authorities who have initiated the action of cancellation of licence are proceeding on the basis of the allegations in the criminal case. In such circumstances, I called upon the learned A.G.P. to satisfy me as to what was placed before the Minister which compelled him to pass the order restoring the licence in favour of respondent no.3. None could dispute before me that true effect of the order and direction of the Minister is that the licence which has been cancelled stands restored. Before such an order could have been passed the Minister was obliged to consider the public interest. The card holders for whom the public distribution system is meant and in whose interest it should be implemented, are the real beneficiaries. The general public should not be made to get their stock of essential commodities from the dealers who have been charged with serious criminal offences. That is the matter which should have been of great concern. -3- 4. That apart, even if the Minister was to take a lenient view of the matter, the circumstances to take such a view necessitates the reports/remarks of the concerned authorities are not being referred to while passing the impugned order. 5. I am not entering into the issue of locus of the present petitioner. The petitioner does not have any right and cannot insist upon specified number of units or card holders being attached to his shop. Whatever arrangements have to be made in the interest of the card holders are matters for the authorities to decide. However, when suddenly stocks which are to be supplied from the shop of the petitioner now stand diverted to respondent no.3, then, something more was necessary to have been gone into. The order under challenge does not reflect any application of mind to the above issue. In such circumstances, the same is vitiated and deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, I do not wish to deny respondent no.3 an opportunity to request the Revisional Authority to review and/or revise the order cancelling his licence. In such circumstances, while quashing and setting aside the impugned order I direct that -4- the revision application of respondent no.3 should now be decided afresh and on this occasion the same shall be decided by the Secretary in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Maharashtra. All parties to appear before the said Secretary on 28th January, 2008 and the said Secretary to decide the revision application afresh without being influenced by any observations in the order of the Minister. The petitioner shall be permitted to intervene and appear in the said proceedings. The existing arrangement for cardholders shall continue till the Revision Application is decided. Petition is disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)