1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3676 OF 2009 1. SANTOSH GANGARAM KANADJE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCU.: BUSINESS, R/O. KULAMKHED, TAH. & DIST. BULDANA. .. PETITIONERS. // VERSUS // 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI – 440 032. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, TAH. AND DISTT. BULDHANA. 3. SHRI RAJENDRA SANDU KANADJE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCU.: CULTIVATION, R/O. KAULAMKHED, TAH. & DISTT. BULDHANA. .... RESPONDENTS. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri P.R.Puri, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri T.R.Kankale, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2. Shri P.S.Khubalkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 07, 2009. 1. Heard. 2 2. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.3525 of 2009, which was allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such, on 29.08.2009, since the petitioner had stated that there were some technical defects in that petition and he had already filed this petition challenging the impugned order. It can not, therefore, be said that the petitioner cannot prosecute the present petition in view of the withdrawal of the previous petition, since the withdrawal was permitted specifically noting that there were some technical defects in the previous petition. 3. This petition is directed against orders passed by District Supply Officer, Buldana and the Hon’ble Minister for Civil Supplies, whereby licence of the petitioner to run fair price shop as well as distribution of kerosene has been suspended until further orders. 4. The facts, which are material for deciding this petition, are as under : Respondent No.3 filed complaint before the Tahsildar, complaining of irregularities in distribution of food grains as well as kerosene in the fair price shop of the petitioner. As per orders of the Tahsildar, Inspection Officer conducted an enquiry, recorded statements of card-holders and examined record of fair price shop of the petitioner. He 3 found six irregularities. In view of this report, the District Supply Officer issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 21.01.2007, which was replied to by the petitioner on 30th September, 2007. The District Supply Officer passed two orders on 06.10.2007 suspending licence of the petitioner for vending kerosene as also distribution of fair price shop until further orders. 5. The petitioner challenged this order by revision before the Commissioner, Amravati Division. The Deputy Commissioner (Supplies), Amravati Division by his orders dated 15.01.2008 allowed the revision applications and set aside both the orders of the District Supply Officer, dated 06.10.2007. 6. The respondent No.3 challenged these orders before the Minister. By his impugned orders dated 7th August, 2009 the Hon’ble Minister set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and maintained the orders of the District Supply Officer. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3. 4 8. Even the orders in favour of the petitioner passed by the Deputy Commissioner do not exonerate the petitioner entirely. The Deputy Commissioner has observed that the petitioner may be partially guilty and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner had ordered forfeiture of half of the security deposit of the petitioner. This would imply that an inquiry into the allegation against the petitioner was warranted and the District Supply Officer was required to pass appropriate orders after conducting proper inquiry. 9. All the same, the suspension of the licence of the petitioner until further orders was thoroughly unwarranted and such an order could not have been restored by the Hon’ble Minister, since this order virtually amounted to cancellation of licence. Any order of suspension, which the authority could pass, should mention the period of suspension and for this reason itself the impugned orders by the Hon’ble Minister as well as by the District Supply Officer would have to be set aside. 10. In view of this, the impugned orders of the Hon’ble Minister as well as District Supply Officer are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order of the Deputy Commissioner are also set aside. 5 The District Supply Officer shall conduct fresh inquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner’s fair price shop and kerosene distribution licence and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months. 11. The petition is allowed in the above terms. JUDGE RR.