wp10945.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10945 OF 2010 Ashok Phulchand Gangwal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. C.R. Thorat, advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 13TH DECEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard. 2 This petition is filed being aggrieved by clause No.5 of the order dated 1.11.2010 passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Revision No. 256 of 2010. 3 The Revision filed by the petitioner is partly allowed, except clause 5. In clause 5 of the said order, the petitioner is directed to wp10945.10 -2- deposit an amount of Rs.4,42,800/- towards lifting the excess quota of wheat to the extent of 246 quintals. The Minister, after hearing the parties to the Revision has recorded that the petitioner has lifted 246 quintals of wheat in excess of the sanctioned quota. The Minister i.e. revisional authority has directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount @ Rs.18/- per Kg. for 246 quintals, which comes to Rs. 4,42,800/-. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said conclusion arrived at by the revisional authority is erroneous. No charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was not heard when the CID filed report to the District Supply Officer. Learned counsel further submits that it is not possible for the petitioner to lift more wheat bags than the permissible quota. Learned counsel further submitted that the authorities working at Taluka place had allowed the petitioner to lift the wheat bags as per the sanctioned quota and there is no question of lifting 246 quintals excess wheat from the office of Tahsildar. Therefore, learned counsel relying on the pleadings and the grounds taken in the petition submits that this petition deserves to be allowed. 5 Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that whether the petitioner has lifted 246 quintals of wheat, wp10945.10 -3- which is in excess of sanctioned quota, is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The revisional authority in last para of the order calculated the said amount and has held on the facts that the petitioner has lifted excess quantity of 246 quintals of wheat and therefore, has directed to deposit the amount. In my opinion, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Writ petition stands dismissed. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/