1 LPA. No.239 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Letters Patent Appeal No.239 of 2011 In Writ Petition No.1013 of 2011 With Civil Application No.9201 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.239 of 2011 Manohar s/o Nana Pawar .. Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. S.M. Godsay, Advocate, for appellant. Shri. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Shri. P.S. Dighe, Advocate, holding for Shri. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate, for respondent No.7. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE 22 SEPTEMBER 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The appellant was running a fair price shop. By an order dated 6-10-2008 the District Supply Officer, 2 LPA. No.239 of 2011 Beed, cancelled the licence. The appellant preferred a revision to the Commissioner which came to be dismissed on 6-3-2009. A further revision was filed by the appellant before the Hon'ble Minister which came to be dismissed on 15-10-2009. The appellant filed review before the Hon'ble Minister which came to be allowed by an order dated 15-10-2010. 3) The respondents 7 to 9 filed Writ Petition No. 1013 of 2011 in this Court. The learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the petition by an order dated 7-7-2011 and set aside the order dated 15-10-2010 passed by the Hon’ble Minister. 4) Learned counsel Shri. Godsay appearing for the appellant submits that, the view of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. The counsel submits that no opportunity was given to the appellant by the authorities before cancelling the licence. 5) Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that, the Hon'ble Minister had committed an error in 3 LPA. No.239 of 2011 allowing the review without there being any case for review. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is a reasoned one, no interference is called for. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the judgment in Ramprasad Ramchandra Chavan v. State of Maharashtra, 2010(6) Bom.C.R.633. 6) We have perused the order, the judgment cited supra. We are convinced that there was no good ground to entertain the review petition by the Hon’ble Minister. In the facts of the case, exercise of jurisdiction by the Hon'ble Minister while entertaining review petition filed by the appellant was erroneous. We are not inclined to accept the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. We do not see any apparent error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7) The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application No.9201 of 2011 stands rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl