1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4922 of 2007 (Gram Panchayat, Gondegaon Washim & anr. Vs. The State & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 25 th November, 2008 Heard Shri Nemade for the petitioners, and Shri Parihar, the learned A.G.P., for respondent nos. 1 to 5. Shri Vaishnav appears on behalf of the respondent no.6. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, on 16th August, 2007, in a revision filed by the respondent no.6, thereby partly allowing the revision application. The respondent no.6 was running a Fair Price Shop at village Gondegaon, Taluka Manora, District Washim. Since it was found that the respondent no.6 had sold certain quantity of wheat and rice in open market in stead of selling the same to the ration card- holders, the authorization of the respondent 2 no.6 was cancelled by the S.D.O.on 29/4/2006. The respondent no.6 had challenged the order of the Sub Divisional Officer before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Amravati Division. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), however, by the order dated 27th October, 2006, maintained the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 29/4/2006. The respondent no.6 approached the Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection in a revision under Clause 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1975). The Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, by the impugned order dated 16th August, 2007, partly allowed the application filed by the respondent no.6 and set aside the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 29/4/2006 and the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) on 27/10/2006 and in stead, imposed a fine of Rs. 15,000/- on respondent no.6. Certain other ancillary orders were also passed against the respondent no.6. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 16th August, 2007 in the instant petition. Shri S.U. Nemade, the learned 3 counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, was not justified in restoring the authorization of the respondent no.6 and imposing a lesser punishment of payment of fine of Rs. 15,000/-, though it was held by the Minister that the charge against the respondent no.6 of selling certain quantifies of wheat and rice in the open market, was proved. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners by relying on clause 3 of the Order of 1975, that it was necessary for the Minister to record reasons for imposing fine and setting aside the order of cancellation of authorization. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that recording of reasons by the Minister was necessary because the Sub Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) had recorded the reasons while cancelling the authorization. The learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that it was necessary for the Minister to hear the petitioners before passing the impugned order. Shri Vaishnav, the learned counsel for the respondent no.6, supported the order passed by the Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection. It is submitted on 4 behalf of the respondent no.6 that the Minister had recorded the reasons for imposition of fine of Rs. 15,000/- in stead of cancellation of the authorization. Shri Parihar, the learned A.G.P. also supported the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1, and submitted that the jurisdiction under Clause 24 of the Order of 1975, has rightly been invoked for imposing a lesser penalty on the respondent no.6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. I have also perused the provisions of Clause 3 and Clause 24 of the Order of 1975. Clause 3 of the Order of 1975, no doubt, speaks of recording of reason in writing before adding, varying, suspending or cancelling the authorization issued in favour of a licensee. Though it is the case of the petitioners that the Sub Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) had recorded reasons for cancellation of authorization, it is noteworthy that a copy of the order of the Sub Divisional Officer is not annexed to this petition for perusal. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply) had, by the order dated 27th October, 2006, upheld the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer 5 cancelling the authorization of the respondent no.6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent no.1 came to a conclusion that the charge against the respondent no.6 was proved but, in order to give one more chance to the respondent no.6, it was necessary to restore the authorization of the respondent no.6, subject to the decision of the Court. In fact, the respondent no.1 had asked the District Supply Officer to ascertain as to whether a criminal offence could be registered against the persons concerned with the incident. It, therefore, cannot be said that no reason was recorded by the respondent no.1 for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) and imposing a fine of Rs. 15,000/- on the respondent no.6. It appears that after considering the fact that the respondent no.6 was running the Fair Price Shop for a period of more than 20 years, the respondent no.1 decided to give one more chance to the respondent no.6 to make the necessary arrangement. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there was no reason recorded for modifying the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), is, therefore, not well 6 founded and is liable to be rejected. It also cannot be said that it was necessary for the respondent no.1 to hear the petitioners before passing the impugned order as the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings either before the Sub Divisional Officer or before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply). The petitioners had also not moved the respondent no.1 for joining them as parties to the revision filed by the respondent no.6 under Clause 24 of the Order of 1975. It, therefore, cannot be said that the second proviso to clause 24 of the Order of 1975 can be invoked in this case so as to grant a hearing to the petitioners before passing the impugned order dated 16th August, 2007. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP