1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4689/2010 (Baburao S. Dandge VERSUS State of Mah. & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.A. Gawande, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. I.L. Bodade, A.G.P. for the R-1 to 3. Shri A.J. Kadu, counsel for the R-4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 8 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Minister (Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection) dated 23.03.2010 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and upholding the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Amravati Division, Amravati and District Supply Officer, Amravati cancelling the retail kerosene license issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was granted authorization for running a fair price shop and also license to sell kerosene in retail. A complaint was lodged against the petitioner for the irregularities and illegalities committed by the petitioner while selling the essential commodities and kerosene. An enquiry was conducted by the Naib Tahsildar in the matter and the report was submitted by the Naib Tahsildar to the District Supply Officer. The District Supply Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and the District Supply Officer, after considering his explanation, passed an order cancelling the kerosene license of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, Civil 2 Supplies in an appeal against the order passed by the District Supply Officer. The Deputy Commissioner (Supplies), Amravati Division, Amravati, however, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by an order dated 29.07.2008. The petitioner preferred a second appeal before the respondent no.1, the Minister for Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection but, the respondent no.1 also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 23.03.2010. It was canvased on behalf of the petitioner that though the notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner on 23.12.2009 and the petitioner was asked to remain present before the respondent no.1 on 02.01.2010 in regard to the hearing of the matter in respect of cancellation of kerosene license and fair price shop, on 02.01.2010, the respondent no.1, heard the counsel for the petitioner only in the matter pertaining to the fair price shop and not in regard to the matter pertaining to the cancellation of kerosene license. In view of these submissions, the respondent no.1 filed an affidavit-in-reply and has refuted the allegations made by the petitioner as regards the grievance of the petitioner that he was not heard in the appeal dealing with the cancellation of the kerosene license. It is specifically stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the respondent no.1 gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 02.01.2010 in both the appeals pertaining to kerosene license and fair price shop. It is stated in the reply that the petitioner was specifically informed about the hearing of both the matters by the notice dated 23.12.2009 and on the date of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner was very much before the 3 respondent no.1 and the arguments were advanced by the counsel for the petitioner in both the matters. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the respondent no.1, after going through the appeal memo and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. On the perusal of the affidavit-in-reply and the notice issued by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner, dated 23.12.2009, it appears that the petitioner was aware that both the appeals were fixed before the Hon’ble Minister on 02.01.2010 and the petitioner’s counsel was also heard in both the appeals. Hence, the main submission of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 23.03.2010 was passed behind the back of the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner appears to be ill-founded. It further appears on a perusal of the impugned order dated 23.03.2010 that the respondent no.1 did not commit any error in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The respondent no.1 found that the petitioner had committed serious illegalities and irregularities by supplying less kerosene to the card holders than the prescribed quota, by selling kerosene at higher rates and also mixing water in the kerosene. While recording this finding, the respondent no.1 considered the statements of the witnesses and also the explanation given by the petitioner to the various charges leveled against him. The respondent no.1 held that the District Supply Officer and the Deputy Commissioner Civil Supplies had not committed any error in cancelling the license of the petitioner. It is worthwhile to mention that though the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 4 respondent no.1 on 23.03.2010, the petitioner has not impugned the orders passed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 cancelling the license of the petitioner. Since the order passed by the respondent no.1 appears to be just and proper, the same cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE