(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8546 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8547 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8558 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1767 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 8546 OF 2009 Laxman s/o. Gangadhar Tupsaindar, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Limbe Jalgaon, Taluka : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Hon'ble Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. 3. The District Supply Officer, Aurangabad. .. Respondents ....................... (2) WRIT PETITION NO. 8547 OF 2009 Bhausaheb s/o. Rustam Hiwale, Age : 59 years, Occupation : Running a Fair Price Shop, R/o. at post Wahegaon, Taluka : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Hon'ble Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. 3. The District Supply Officer, Aurangabad. .. Respondents ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 8558 OF 2009 Satish s/o. Devidasrao Vaidya, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Running a Fair Price Shop, R/o. at post Waluj, Taluka : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus (3) 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Hon'ble Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. 3. The District Supply Officer, Aurangabad. .. Respondents ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 1767 OF 2010 Subhash s/o. Kisan Tupe, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Running a Fair Price Shop, R/o. Waluj, Taluka : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Hon'ble Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. 3. The District Supply Officer, Aurangabad. .. Respondents ....................... (4) Mr. C.R. Thorat, Advocate, for petitioners in all the petitions. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3 in all the petitions. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 3RD MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. C.R. Thorat, appearing for the respective petitioners, and learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe, appearing for the respondents. 2. As a common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Respondent no.1 / Hon. Minister by the impugned orders, allowed the revisions filed by the petitioners under the provisions of Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 1975, Clause 24, quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), restored authorization of (5) their fair price shops, however, then forfeited deposit and inflicted penalty of Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 15,000/- on the respective petitioners for lifting excess wheat than their entitlement. 4. Adv. Mr. Thorat, appearing for the petitioners, has contended that this finding of lifting wheat in excess of entitlement is misconceived. He relies upon the document allegedly prepared by CID to show that there were total 233 cards attached to the shop of the petitioner and hence in the light of the Government decision taken from time to time, he was entitled to lift 25 Kgs. of wheat per BPL card holder. Hence according to him, his entitlement works out to much more and there cannot be any excess. In the alternative and without prejudice, it is further argued that records of CID used along with report were not made available to the petitioners and hence finding is unsustainable. He, therefore, prays for grant of opportunity of hearing before Hon. Minister to demonstrate all this. 5. Learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe, appearing for the respondents, has pointed out that the CID inquiry has been held later on. Initially on the basis of records of the petitioners, it was revealed that sale register and the record showing quantum (6) in possession were not maintained up-to-date. Signatures of card holders were not obtained in token of receipt of wheat sold to them, entry of wheat sold was not taken in cards and the petitioners did not submit any advance demand to Tahsildar before lifting the wheat. 6. After hearing respective Counsel, I find that the lapses noticed have got no bearing on the alleged investigation by CID. The investigation by CID has come later on. The petitioners have nowhere made a grievance that their records used for reaching this finding were not made available to them and, therefore, they have suffered any prejudice. 7. Perusal of the orders passed by the Hon. Minister reveals that even CID has found that petitioners have lifted stock of wheat in excess. The mention of stock in excess is referable to the quantity not shown to have been distributed by records of the petitioners. Even if contention of each of the petitioners, that his entitlement was much more and he has not lifted in excess, is to be accepted, the lapses noticed clearly show that stock lifted is not established to be distributed to BPL card holders. 8. The petitioners have not made any specific grievance (7) of non-observance of principles of natural justice, in this respect, before the Hon. Minister. 9. In view of concurrent findings reached by the authorities, I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity with the impugned orders. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the petitions are dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/8546wpetc