( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6234 OF 2008 Babu Manik Waghmare PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Smt. M.A. Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for the respondent/State. Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, advocate for respondent No. 6. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 18th June, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 16th June, 2008 rendered by the ( 2 ) Hon’ble Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, whereby and whereunder the order for re- inquiry directed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supply), Aurangabad in revision application No. 2008/SB/RP/111 on 3rd May, 2008 was set aside. The fall- out of the impugned order is that the order rendered by the learned District Supply Officer, Nanded is restored and the authorisation granted to the petitioner for running fair price shop came to be cancelled. 3. The petitioner runs a fair price shop at village Balegaon. There were certain complaints against the petitioner in respect of his misconduct of selling the commodities at higher price than the fixed one. There were also grievances about non-distribution of the kerosene to the card-holders. The petitioner was called upon to explain about the grievances of the card-holders by issuing a show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation. It was asserted by him that husband of the village sarpanch used to harass him and used to demand money for consumption of liquor. His denial to pay such money to the husband of the sarpanch ( 3 ) was the reason for the complaint application. The District Supply Officer called for report of inquiry from Tahsildar, Naigaon. He came to the conclusion that the petitioner was indulging in malpractice of selling the commodities at higher rate than the fixed one. Consequently, the authorisation was cancelled and the amount of security deposit was forfeited. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. The Deputy Commissioner noticed that the inquiry was not properly conducted and the inference drawn by the learned District Supply Officer were based on surmises. The learned Deputy Commissioner (Supply) remanded the matter for afresh inquiry and directed that a fresh decision may be taken after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 6 preferred revision application No. VAM-1608/566/PK. 280-08/CS.21. The revision application is allowed by the Hon’ble Minister vide the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. ( 4 ) 5. At the threshold, let it be noted that the respondents No. 1 to 5 have not filed any reply affidavit in support of the impugned order. It is contended by Mr. Tele that the impugned order indicates appropriate reasons for interference in the order rendered by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply). The impugned order, in fact, reveals that the petitioner was unable to rebut the charges on basis of concrete evidence. This is an error apparent on face of the record. For, it was necessary to examine whether the charges were duly established on the basis of available record. The petitioner had denied the charges levelled against him. The impugned order shows that the Hon’ble Minister was much influenced by the fact that many of the villagers had complained against the petitioner. The Hon’ble Minister seems to have overlooked the fact that the learned District Supply Officer did not record sufficient reasons to reach the conclusion that the petitioner was indulging in sale of commodities at higher rates. In fact, the order dated 15th March, 2008 rendered by the learned District Supply Officer would ( 5 ) show that he expressed only “prima facie” opinion in this behalf. It was not an interlocutory order and, therefore, there was no question of prima facie opinion required to be formulated by the concerned authority. It was necessary to examine whether particular charges of the misconduct which could entail cancellation of the authorisation were proved. There is no specific finding about a particular charge as such, and the order rendered by the District Supply Officer was rather cryptic. Under the given circumstances, the learned Deputy Commissioner (Supply) was justified in remanding of the matter with direction to specify the charges and pass elaborate order after due discussion of the material placed on record. Considering these aspects, the impugned order is found to be arbitrary and improper exercise of the revision jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Minister. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Needless to say, the order of remand as rendered by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) stands restored, with further direction that ( 6 ) afresh inquiry may be made and if serious charges are proved, then the action may be taken against the petitioner on basis of the material collected during the inquiry. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP6234-08