1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1038/2004 Damayanti Vasantrao Phalake Petitioners Vs. Asha Sanjay Awade & Ors. Respondents Ms.Leena Shah i/b S.A.Sawant for the petitioners Mr.A.H.Palekar A.G.P. for Respondents 2 to 4 CORAM : V.C.Daga,& Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ. Date : 11th February,2009. P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2] None for respondent no.1. 3] Learned A.G.P.for respondent nos.2,3,4 is present . 4] This petition is directed against the order dated 2/1/2004 passed by the Hon.Minister,(Food,Civil Supply and Consumer Protection),Government of Maharashtra,Mumbai whereby the order passed by the District Supply Officer,Satara dated 3/2/2003 affirmed by the Dy.Commissioner,(Supply),Pune Region dated 12/5/2003 was 2 set aside and the Retail License for kerosene was ordered to be readvertised for the area at Post-Padali,Satara Road, Tal.Koregaon. The factual matrix reveals that respondent no.2 on 18/1/2002 had invited applications from the women residing in the area of village Padali, Tal.Koregaon for allotment of retail kerosene license.The last date for making application was prescribed as 25/1/2002. 5] The petitioner applied for the aforesaid license. However,the application submitted by respondent no.1 was received by the office of the respondent no.2 on 29/1/2002,after the expiry of the last date prescribed in the advertisement i.e.after 25/1/2002. 6] In view of the receipt of the application of respondent no.1, after the prescribed date, respondent no.2 granted license in favour of the petitioner since the petitioner fulfilled all the terms and conditions and also submitted her application within time. In support of the said grant the reasons were recorded. 7] Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of respondent no.2 dated 3/2/2003 granting license in favour of the petitioner, respondent no.1 filed Revision Application before respondent no.3. Said Revision Application was dismissed by the reasoned order. 8] Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12/5/2003,respondent no.1 preferred Revision before the 3 Hon.Minister which was allowed by the order dated 2/1/2004 observing as under :- ''But in pursuance of the Revision Application referred by the Applicant and considering the submission and perusing the original record,it is revealed that the Application sent by the Applicant received by Koregaon,Tahasil Office on 29/1/2002 and to that effect office seal shows that date is of 29/1/2002.But the Application preferred by Applicant shows the date i.e. dated 25/1/2002 and the date is strike off. Therefore it is doubtful that when the application of the Applicant is received by the office. It is therefore in the interest of justice to readvertise the Retail Licence for Kerosene .Therefore I am passing following order.'' 9] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from erroneous and perverse approach. He submits that so far as the endorsement evidencing receipt of the application of the respondent no.1 is concerned it was made in discharge of official duty by the public servant as such it ought to have been relied upon by the Honourable Minister,which unequivocally demonstrated that,the application was received on 29/1/2002 i.e. beyond prescribed date. He submits that so far as the office copy of the application carrying endorsement of receipt coming from the custody of the respondent no.1 is concerned,it no doubt carried an endorsement showing receipt of the application within prescribed time but there was a over writing as such said evidence coming from the 4 custody of respondent no.1 could not have been preferred over the evidence which was available in the official record. It is thus urged that the impugned order suffers from perverse approach. 10] Since nobody is appearing for respondent no.1,we did not have advantage of hearing respondent no.1.Learned A.G.P.could not take his submissions to the logical end though he tried to support the impugned order. 11] Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly argued that the Honourable Minister could not have relied upon the endorsement reflected in the office copy of the respondent no.1 carrying a date which was tapered with by somebody. That official endorsement raised the presumption of correctness which could not have been brushed aside by the State Government. The impugned order suffers from erroneous and arbitrary approach and perverse finding. 12] In the above view of the matter the impugned order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed and set aside. 13] In the result the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b) with no order as to costs. 5 (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) (V.C.Daga,J.)