Quashed

Balbhim Sukhdeo Limbkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2012WP/6401/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court quashed an order by the Hon'ble Minister that allowed a revision against the cancellation of a fair price shop license. The Court set aside the order solely on the ground that the petitioner, who was a party to the revision proceedings, was not served with notices, violating principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated before the Hon'ble Minister for a fresh hearing.

Balbhim Sukhdeo Limbkar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P.No.6401/11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶3

BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6401 OF 2011.

¶6

Balbhim S/o Sukhdeo Limbkar,
Age adult, Occ. Agri.
R/o Khasgaon, Tq.Paranda,
Dist.Osmanabad.

¶7

... Petitioner.

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra.
through the Secretary to the
Department of Food, Civil
Supply and Consumer Protection,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.

¶10

2. The Divisional Commissioner,
(Supply), Aurangabad Region,
Aurangabad.

¶11

3. The District Supply Officer,
Osmanabad.

¶12

4. Smt.Manisha W/o Nagesh Shinde,
Age adult, Occ.Business,
R/o Khasgaon, Tq.Paranda,
Dist.Osmanabad.

¶13

... Respondents.

¶14

Mr.Y.S.Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.K.Tambe, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the State.
Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶15

2 W.P.No.6401/11

¶16

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
 Date : 16.01.2012.

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶18

1.Heard.

¶19

2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.

¶20

3.The proceedings were initiated in

¶21

respect of cancellation of license of the fair
price shop of the Respondent No.4. The District
Supply Officer, cancelled the license of the
Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 filed an
appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply),
Aurangabad. The present petitioner was not made
a party, as such filed intervention application.
The petitioner and Respondent No.4 were heard by
the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner
rejected the appeal. The Respondent No.4
preferred Revision before the Hon'ble Minister.

¶22

3 W.P.No.6401/11

¶23

In the said Revision the present petitioner was
Respondent No.3. The Revision came to be
allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ
Petition is filed.

¶24

4.Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that though the notice is said
to have been issued to the present petitioner in
the said Revision, the said notice was never
served and as such in absence of the present
petitioner, the Revision came to be allowed. The
learned counsel submits that the Hon'ble Minister
has not taken into consideration various facets
of the matter. The impugned order is in gross
violation of principles of natural justice.

¶25

5.Mrs.Ansari,learnedcounselfor

¶26

Respondent No.4 supports the order and submits

¶27

that the Hon'ble Minister has taken into
consideration all the facets of the matter and
thereafter has allowed the Revision. Even
notices were issued to the present petitioner and
he remained absent. No illegality is committed
by the Hon'ble Minister in passing the order.

¶28

4 W.P.No.6401/11

¶29

6.As there were rival contentions in

¶30

respect of service of the notice of the
proceedings before the Hon'ble Minister upon the
petitioner. I had called upon the present
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to file affidavit
specifying the status of the service of notice on
the present petitioner. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3
have filed affidavit stating that though the
office of the Respondent No.3 issued the copy of
the letter for serving it on the petitioner,
inadvertently the petitioner was not served.

¶31

7.In light of the fact that the

¶32

petitioner was a party before the Hon'ble
Minister in the Revision and no notices were
served on him, the same would amount to violation
of principles of natural justice and the order
impugned can not be sustained on this ground.

¶33

8.As I am setting aside the order only on

¶34

the count that the present petitioner was not
served with the notice, I am not entering into
the merits of the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for respective parties.

¶35

5 W.P.No.6401/11

¶36

9.In the result, the impugned order is
quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated
before the Hon'ble Minister. The parties shall
appear before the Hon'ble Minister in the said
Revision on 23.1.2012 and the Hon'ble Minister
shall endeavour to decide the said Revision as
expeditiously as possible.

¶37

10.Mrs.Kulkarni, learned counsel submits
that the Respondent No.4 has deposited amount
also and the quota could not be released because
of the orders of the statusquo passed by this
Court. The order of statusquo be continued, so
that the Respondent State would not allot the
said license to any other person. Needless to
state, when the matter is remitted to the
Revisional authority, the State shall not issue
any fresh proclamation for allotment of the shop
in village Khasgaon, Tq.Paranda, Dist.Osmanabad,
till the disposal of the Revision.

¶38

11.Rule made absolute in above terms.

¶39

6 W.P.No.6401/11

¶40

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶42

asp/office/wp6401.11

Balbhim Sukhdeo Limbkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbhim Sukhdeo Limbkar v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sarlabai Joseph Barnbas Vs Hussain Ramin and Ors.

Rajaram Pundlik Biradar Vs the Sec. Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Valandi and Ors.

Shaikh Rahimabegum Mainoddin Vs the Secretary, Adarsh Bahuudeshiya Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.

Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Aurangabad Thr Br Manager Vs Atul Ratilal Chengede and Ors.

Syed Mumtaz Ali Mehmood Ali Vs Syed Zamin Ali S/O Syed Yunus Ali and Ors.

Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Managing Trustees Vs Gulab Govind Jondhale and Ors.