1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3627 OF 2009 Mr.Vilas Parasram Murukate ... Petitioner v/s 1. State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.B.Tajave i/by Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr.N.P.Deshpande for the respondent No.4. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 26TH JUNE, 2009 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order passed on 18.2.2009 by respondent No.1. The petitioner’s grievance is that this is an order passed in the second revision application before the 1st respondent. 2 3. The petitioner has been running a fair price shop since the year 1988. Respondent No.4 was elected as a Sarpanch of the village for which the fair price shop was being run by the petitioner. He lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the authorities contending that the petitioner was indulging in malpractices while running his fair price shop. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Supply Officer. The petitioner explained his conduct and contended that none of the villagers had any grievance about him and that the complaint of the respondent No.4 was politically motivated. On 30.6.2008, the District Supply Officer cancelled the permit issued to the petitioner without any reasons. A revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, on various grounds. The petitioner contended that his explanation was not considered by the District Supply Officer while cancelling the permit in his favour. By an order dated 25.8.2008, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision application of the petitioner and restored the permit, subject to the result in criminal case pending against the petitioner. It appears that, a revision was then 3 filed by the respondent No.4 before the respondent No.1. That revision resulted in the cancellation of the petitioner’s permit to run the fair price shop. Hence the present petition. 4. It is trite that two revisions are not permitted in law unless expressly provided for by the legislation governing the proceedings. In the present case, the revision application filed against the District Supply Officer has been decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Pune Division. Therefore, the respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to decide the second revision filed against that order. 5. In these circumstances, the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside. 6. Writ petition allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. 7. Since the order of the Deputy Commissioner will now hold the field, in case the respondent No.4 is aggrieved by that order, he may adopt appropriate proceedings in that behalf. ..... 4