1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO.41 OF 2006 LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO.41 OF 2006 LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO.41 OF 2006 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8957 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 8957 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 8957 OF 2005 Jijabai Suresh Giakwad ...Appellant Jijabai Suresh Giakwad ...Appellant Jijabai Suresh Giakwad ...Appellant Vs. Vs. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ----- ----- ----- Mr.Shriram S. Kulkarni for Appellant Mr.Shriram S. Kulkarni for Appellant Mr.Shriram S. Kulkarni for Appellant Mr. R.M. Patne, A.G.P. for Respondents Mr. R.M. Patne, A.G.P. for Respondents Mr. R.M. Patne, A.G.P. for Respondents CORAM: R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & CORAM: R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & CORAM: R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 3RD APRIL, 2006 DATED: 3RD APRIL, 2006 DATED: 3RD APRIL, 2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. 1. Heard. 1. Heard. 2. The learned single Judge after considering all 2. The learned single Judge after considering all 2. The learned single Judge after considering all the materials on record has confirmed the finding the materials on record has confirmed the finding the materials on record has confirmed the finding arrived by the authorities that there was a clear arrived by the authorities that there was a clear arrived by the authorities that there was a clear admission on the part of the appellant that the stock admission on the part of the appellant that the stock admission on the part of the appellant that the stock of the essential commodities meant for the purposes of of the essential commodities meant for the purposes of of the essential commodities meant for the purposes of distribution amongst the card holders was stored at distribution amongst the card holders was stored at distribution amongst the card holders was stored at the place which is situated at a distance of about 2 the place which is situated at a distance of about 2 the place which is situated at a distance of about 2 to 2.1/2 Kms. from the approved place for fair-price to 2.1/2 Kms. from the approved place for fair-price to 2.1/2 Kms. from the approved place for fair-price shop and the same was done without prior permission of shop and the same was done without prior permission of shop and the same was done without prior permission of the concerned authorities. The essential commodities the concerned authorities. The essential commodities the concerned authorities. The essential commodities are primarily meant for distribution to the poor are primarily meant for distribution to the poor are primarily meant for distribution to the poor people and considering the same, the authorities have people and considering the same, the authorities have people and considering the same, the authorities have found that the applicant had shifted the fair-price found that the applicant had shifted the fair-price found that the applicant had shifted the fair-price shop to such a place which is different from the shop to such a place which is different from the shop to such a place which is different from the 2 approved place for distribution of the essential approved place for distribution of the essential approved place for distribution of the essential commodities to the card-holders in the locality, hence commodities to the card-holders in the locality, hence commodities to the card-holders in the locality, hence the authorities have cancelled the licence of the the authorities have cancelled the licence of the the authorities have cancelled the licence of the appellant. appellant. appellant. 3. Learned single Judge after considering all the 3. Learned single Judge after considering all the 3. Learned single Judge after considering all the materials on record has held that in the facts and materials on record has held that in the facts and materials on record has held that in the facts and circumstances of case the authorities have rightly circumstances of case the authorities have rightly circumstances of case the authorities have rightly cancelled the licence. The said finding is clearly cancelled the licence. The said finding is clearly cancelled the licence. The said finding is clearly borne out from the record and even assuming that the borne out from the record and even assuming that the borne out from the record and even assuming that the cancellation of licence on other grounds may not be cancellation of licence on other grounds may not be cancellation of licence on other grounds may not be sustainable, the fact remains that the cancellation sustainable, the fact remains that the cancellation sustainable, the fact remains that the cancellation can be sustained on the ground on which the learned can be sustained on the ground on which the learned can be sustained on the ground on which the learned Single Judge has considered the cancellation of Single Judge has considered the cancellation of Single Judge has considered the cancellation of licence to be proper and lawful. There is no case licence to be proper and lawful. There is no case licence to be proper and lawful. There is no case made out for interference in the order passed by the made out for interference in the order passed by the made out for interference in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the Appeal fails and is learned single Judge. Hence, the Appeal fails and is learned single Judge. Hence, the Appeal fails and is rejected. rejected. rejected. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.) (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.) (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.) 3