1 wp-476-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 476 OF 2011 Mr Sanjay Rajaram Deshmukh ..Petitioner. versus Mr Jitendra Shantaram Deshmukh and others ..Respondents. Mr Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr Sanjeev P. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mrs M.P. Thakur, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. Dated : 15th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr Sanjeev Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mrs M.P. Thakur, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 respectively waive service of notice. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 1st November, 2010 passed by the Hon'ble Minister of Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer 2 wp-476-11 Protection Department, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the Hon’ble Minister”). Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed a complaint before the District Supply Officer (Respondent No.4) regarding the illegalities/irregularities committed by Respondent No.1, who is the fair price shop owner. On the basis of the said complaint, the District Supply Officer Alibaug (Respondent No.4) considered the issue and vide order dated 26th February, 2010 cancelled the fair price shop licence of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal before the Respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner (Supply) and also submitted an application for grant of interim relief during pendency of the appeal. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) vide order dated 8th March, 2010 rejected the application of the Respondent No.1 for grant of interim relief. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 1 moved the Hon’ble Minister and those proceedings were registered as matter No.144 of 2010. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 only challenged the order dated 8th March, 2010 before the Hon’ble Minister, whereby the application of the Respondent No.1 for grant of interim relief came to be rejected. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) passed a final order in the appeal preferred by Respondent No.1 on 26th April, 2010, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.1 came to be rejected. 3 wp-476-11 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.1 never challenged order dated 26th April, 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) before the Hon’ble Minister and, therefore, it was not open for the Hon’ble Minister to consider the validity of the order dated 26th April, 2010 while considering the matter No.144 of 2010. However, the Hon'ble Minister ignored this aspect of the issue and considered the validity of the order dated 26th April, 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) and allowed the matter No.144 of 2010, whereby the order dated 26.4.2010 passed by the Respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner (Supply) came to be quashed and set aside. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order in the backdrop of these facts cannot be sustained in law. 4. Counsel for Respondent No.1 as well as the Assistant Government Pleader do not dispute this factual aspect of the matter. Counsel for Respondent No.1 has also not disputed that order dated 26th April, 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was never challenged before the Hon’ble Minister and the Proceedings which were before the Minister registered as matter No.144 of 2010 were only against the order dated 8th March, 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) whereby the application of the Respondent No.1 for grant of interim relief came to be rejected. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective 4 wp-476-11 counsel for the parties. 6. The above referred undisputed facts clearly show that the proceedings initiated before the Hon’ble Minister were only against the order dated 8th March, 2010 whereby the application of Respondent No.1 for grant of interim relief during pendency of the appeal came to be rejected. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.1 neither amended the matter No.144 of 2010 nor challenged the validity of the order dated 26th April, 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner before the Hon’ble Minister. It is in these circumstances, the Hon'ble Minister obviously could not have been considered the validity of the order dated 26th April, 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, in our view, the impugned order dated 1st November, 2010 passed by the Hon'ble Minister cannot be sustained in law. At this stage, counsel for respondent No.1 seeks liberty to challenge the order dated 26th April, 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) before the Hon'ble Minister and prayed that till such time the decision is taken by the Hon’ble Minister, parties to the proceedings may be asked to maintain status-quo. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 1st November, 2010 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside with liberty to respondent No.1 to file appropriate proceedings challenging 5 wp-476-11 the order dated 26.4.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) before the Hon'ble Minister. In the interest of justice, parties are directed to maintain status-quo only for two weeks from today and it is made clear that this order of status-quo shall cease to operate automatically on expiry of two weeks from today. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)