1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION Nos.1247/2010 & 1248/2010. (Balu s/o Kondiba Parekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SM Kulkarni, Adv. for petitioner; Mrs.SD Shelke, AGP for Respondent for Resp.Nos. 1 to 4; Mrs.MA Kulkarni, Adv. for Respondent no.5. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 27 th September, 2010. ... 1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2) The grievance of the petitioner,a whistle-blower, is, in spite of the complaint, which he filed, against the fair-price shop owner and also against the Vividh Karyakari Society, which runs the fair price shop, which had authority to distribute the food grains and essential commodities to the ration card holders, the learned Tahsildar, in the course of inquiry, deliberately called the persons, who could favour the respondents’ illegalities in discharging the duties in public distribution system in the vicinity, the petitioner was not heard and resultantly the order came to 2 be passed. Similar is the position before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad. 3) The grievance of the petitioner can be addressed and redressed if the matter is remitted to the authorities concerned to decide the same in the light of the grievance that has been put forward by the petitioner, by issuing him a notice and also allowing him to adduce requisite evidence in support of his claim and contention by way of a document or by summoning other persons/villagers in the vicinity, who have been deprived of their legitimate rights for getting essential commodities. 4) Needless to indicate, pursuant to remand of the matter, it will not adversely affect the present grant of license in favour of Respondent No.5. 5) With these observations, both the petitions are disposed of. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/