1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1543 OF 2010 (Baburao Sitaramji Dandge vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 12, 2010. Heard Shri Gawande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Adgokar, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri Raut, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. For charges like recovering more amount from BPL Card Holders, charging more from Antyoday Card holders, not issuing receipts, not obtaining signatures of card holders, issuing receipts for less amount etc., the fair price shop of present petitioner was cancelled on 31.05.2008 by District Supply Officer. The appeal filed against it before the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) was rejected on 23.09.2008. The petitioner then approached in revision before the Hon'ble Minister. The Hon'ble Minister has rejected that revision on 30.01.2010. Shri Gawande, learned counsel contends that action against the shop of the petitioner was out of political malice and after elections. Mahila Bachat Gat wanted shop of the petitioner and they had also 2 complained against some liquor shop. He further points out that the petitioner has produced affidavits of some card holders to show that they had no grievance against the working of the shop of the petitioner. He states that the shop of the petitioner has been working smoothly for last 27 years and there are no complaints. Because of politics only, the petitioner is being victimized. He invites attention to consideration by the Hon'ble Minister in para 5 to urge that the relevant records are not even perused and without any application of mind, the finding has been recorded. The learned AGP and the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 support the impugned order. They urge that after appreciation of evidence, two authorities have found against the petitioner and in revision, the Hon'ble Minister has maintained those findings. The fact show that the District Supply Officer as also the Deputy Commissioner are against the petitioner. In revision, the revisional authority i.e. the Hon'ble Minister has considered the question and attempted to find out whether there is any failure or refusal to exercise jurisdiction. The contentions raised are looked into only in that back ground. It appears that taking advantage of interim orders granted by various authorities, the petitioner has got affidavits of some card holders and produced them before the Hon'ble Minister. The Hon'ble Minister has not looked into those affidavits. 3 I do not find anything wrong with the application of mind by the Hon'ble Minister. Writ Petition is without any merit. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.