1 W.P.No.6033/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6033 OF 2011. Subrao S/o Bhagwan Kedar, Age 57 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Namewadi, Post Shindi, Tq.Kaij, Dist.Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. through its Secretary, Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Ld.Minister for Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 3. The District Supply Officer, Beed, Dist. Beed. 4. The Tahsildar, Kaij, Tq.Kaij, Dist. Beed. 5. Mohan S/o Dnyanoba Waybase, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Namewadi, Post Shindi, Tq.Kaij, Dist.Beed. ... Respondents. ... 2 W.P.No.6033/11 Mr.H.P.Jadhav, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Phatke, Addl. Govt.Pleader for the State. Mr.M.B.Kolpe, advocate for the Respondent No.5. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 17.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present Respondent No.5 has a license to run the fair price shop. The present petitioner and some other card holders have filed complaints regarding the irregularities committed by the Respondent No.5. The Respondent No.4 vide its order dated 4.8.2008, suspended the license of the Respondent NO.5. Aggrieved thereby, the revision was filed before the Minister, who decided the same. The petitioner preferred a Writ Petition. This Court set aside the order of 3 W.P.No.6033/11 the Minister, remitted the matter back to the Minister. Thereafter, the Minister again allowed the said revision. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Mr.Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Minister has come to the conclusion regarding the irregularities but still, has taken a very lenient approach and has allowed the revision by imposing fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). The learned counsel contends that in such matters of grave complaints, the Minister could not have taken such a lenient approach. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4173/2007 dated 1.3.2011. According to the learned counsel, the Minister should have dismissed the revision filed by the Respondent No.5. 5. Mr.Kolpe, learned counsel for Respondent NO.5 and Mr.Phatke, learned Addl.Govt. Pleader support the order and submit that the Minister under Rule 24 of the Maharashtra 4 W.P.No.6033/11 Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975, has got power to amend, vary, suspend or cancel any authorisation, to direct forfeiture of the deposit and to pass such other order. According to learned counsel, the Minister has forfeited the security deposit, has given a warning to the Respondent NO.5 and also imposed fine. The order passed was within the jurisdiction of the Minister. Mr.Kolpe, learned counsel further contends that even the District Supply Officer while passing the order of suspension had not given any opportunity to the petitioner and even otherwise if an order of suspension of license is passed, the inquiry has to be conducted within eight (8) weeks. In the present case no inquiry is conducted thereafter. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the order impugned. The Minister while passing the impugned order has not given a finding about the irregularities. The Minister has only observed that from the record it appears that people have filed complaint regarding the excess price charged by 5 W.P.No.6033/11 the Respondent No.5, that he does not supply commodities in time. While deciding the revision, the Minister is required to come to a definite conclusion and give a specific finding to that effect. In the present case, the Minister has only referred to the statements and has said that in view of the statements, he is giving one more opportunity to the present Respondent No.5. Such an approach is not sustainable. If the Minister comes to the conclusion that the present Respondent No.5 is not guilty of any act, he has got powers to straightway allow the revision and if he comes to the conclusion that Respondent No.5 is guilty of illegalities then he has to dismiss the revision. In the present case, no definite finding is given. Such an order can not be sustained. 7. It also appears that the order of suspension is passed on 4.8.2008. Thereafter, no inquiry has been conducted. The license can not remain under suspension for indefinite time. The authority is required to conduct an inquiry and thereafter give a definite finding on the same. 6 W.P.No.6033/11 8. In light of the above anomalies, I set aside the order passed by the Minister impugned in the present Writ Petition. It is stated that the alternate arrangement is made for supply of the commodities and the kerosene. The said alternate arrangement shall continue till the District Supply Officer makes an inquiry and decides the issue about the suspension of the license or otherwise takes such appropriate steps under the Rules/statute. 9. In the result, I pass the following order : ORDER (i) The impugned order passed by the Minister is quashed and set aside. The District Supply Officer, Beed shall conduct the inquiry in respect of the complaints by virtue of which the order of suspension dated 4.8.2008 was passed. The District Supply Officer shall give opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner and the Respondent No.5 and after inquiry shall 7 W.P.No.6033/11 decide about the suspension of the license of the petitioner i.e. whether the license is required to be suspended or not. If after inquiry the District Supply Officer, Beed is satisfied that the allegations are true and correct, he may take such further action as permissible in law and if he comes to the conclusion that the allegations are not proved then would restore the license to the Respondent No.5. (ii) Needless to state that any orders passed by the District Supply officer, the aggrieved party has right to avail further remedy available in law. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp603311 8 W.P.No.6033/11