Partly allowed

Limbaji Gema Jadhav v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2011WP/424/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed the writ petition, quashing orders canceling the petitioner's fair price shop authorization. It held that the petitioner suffered prejudice due to non-supply of the inquiry report before the final order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing with a provision for an additional reply.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders were quashed and set aside; the matter remanded to the District Supply Officer for fresh consideration after an additional reply.

Limbaji Gema Jadhav Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 424 OF 2011

¶4

Limbaji s/o. Gema Jadhav, Aged : 47 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Rampur Tanda, Taluka : Palam, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶7

The Additional Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶8

The District Supply Officer, Parbhani.

¶9

Rajaram s/o. Hari Rathod, Aged : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Rampur Tanda, Taluka : Palam, District : Parbhani. .. Respondents.

¶10

(2)

¶11

Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶13

Mr. R.T. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent no.4.

¶14

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶15

DATE : 9TH MARCH 2011

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

1. Heard Adv. Mr. P.S. Dighe, for the petitioner; learned AGP Mr. D.R. Korde, for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Adv. Mr. R.T. Deshmukh, for respondent no.4.

¶18

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.

¶19

3. Adv. Mr. P.S. Dighe, for the petitioner, contends that authorization of fair price shop of the petitioner has been cancelled because of political influence and without giving him necessary opportunity of hearing. Copy of the alleged report on

¶20

(3)

¶21

the basis of which action was initiated has not been supplied and though its non-supply was made the ground of challenge in appeal, the appellate authority has not looked into it. He invites attention to communication by local MLA, to urge that as there is political influence, the revision before State Government has not been filed and directly present petition has been preferred. According to him, during pendency of appeal, copy of so called report of District Supply Inspector is also procured by the petitioner and that report also does not contain any material adverse to the petitioner.

¶22

4. Learned AGP Mr. D.R. Korde, appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, as also, Adv. Mr. R.T. Deshmukh, appearing for respondent no.4, are supporting the impugned order. Adv. Mr. R.T. Deshmukh urges that remedy of filing revision before State Government is available. He further points out that in the meanwhile, alternate arrangement has been made and the card holders are now getting food grains from other shop.

¶23

5. Adv. Mr. P.S. Dighe points out that this Court on 20th January 2011, ordered final consideration of controversy and did not grant any interim relief. He, therefore, requests the Court to restore authorization of fair price shop in favour of the petitioner.

¶24

(4)

¶25

6. After hearing respective Counsel, I find that after receipt of show cause notice, the petitioner has appeared before District Supply Officer and filed his reply. The reply has been prepared by Advocate and has been tendered on 19-11-2009. He sought adjournment on the ground that there was marriage of his client's daughter on 13-12-2009 and hence to avoid any psychological disturbance, the matter should be adjourned to 20th December 2009. The District Supply Officer has proceeded to decide the matter on 20th November 2009. In short, the petitioner then did not specifically demand copy of the report.

¶26

7. However, when the report submitted by District Supply Inspector on 31-10-2009 is looked into, it makes reference to some common statements allegedly recorded during inquiry. The petitioner also disclosed that complainants were not card holders from his shop.

¶27

8. In this situation, I find that the petitioner has suffered prejudice as copy of that report was not made available by the District Supply Officer before passing the impugned order. It is apparent that after filing reply on 19th November 2009, impugned order came to be passed on 20th November 2009, without fixing the matter for oral arguments. Hence, only with a

¶28

(5)

¶29

view to give fair opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order will have to be set aside. The petitioner is now having copy of report of District Supply Inspector, Parbhani.

¶30

9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed.

¶31

(i) The impugned order dated 20-12-2010, Exhibit "J" with petition, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, is quashed and set aside. So also, impugned order dated 20-11-2009, Exhibit "F" with petition, passed by District Supply Officer, Parbhani, is quashed and set aside.

¶32

(ii) Matter is remanded to respondent no.3 / District Supply Officer, Parbhani, for giving decision afresh.

¶33

(iii) The petitioner is permitted to file additional reply, if any, within a period of four weeks from today before the District Supply Officer. After such reply is filed, the District Supply Officer shall hear the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter as early as possible and in any case, by 31st May 2011.

¶34

(iv) Till the decision of the District Supply Officer in the matter, alternate arrangement made by the respondents to continue.

¶35

(6)

¶36

10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶37

( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE

¶38

bgp/wp424

Limbaji Gema Jadhav v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Limbaji Gema Jadhav v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhadrabai Muralidhar Karale and Anr. Vs Asaram Raghunath Berad and Anr.

Ravindra Jagannath Bari Vs Ramesh Sitaram Bahate L.Rs. Shalini Ramesh Barhate and Ors.

Latabai Ramprasad Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Laxman Pawar Vs Shri Wadji Vidya Shikshan Prasarakl Mandal Hargadwadi Dist Beed through Secretary and Ors.

Piraji Deoba Jadhav Th Gpa Piraji Nagorao Gaikwad Vs Rohit Sangamnath Mandharne and Anr.

Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Chief Officer and Ors. Vs Shaikh Anwar Shaikh Ismail Mehtar