Dismissed

Namdeo Mahadeo Mali v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Oct 2016RA/9/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a review application challenging a writ judgment that validated a second revision order by the Food Minister. The Court held there were no errors apparent on the face of the record sufficient to interfere with the prior order.

What did the court decide?

Review Application No.9 of 2014 stands rejected; Civil Application No.13242/2016 disposed of accordingly.

Namdeo Mahadeo Mali Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

09.2014RA.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2014

¶5

IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.335 OF 2012

¶7

Namdeo s/o. Mahadeo Mali,
Age: 58 Years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Mendha, Tq. and Dist.
Osmanabad. APPLICANT
(Orig.Resp.No.4)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Minister Shri Anil Deshmukh Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.

¶10

2. Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad

¶11

3. Deputy Collector (Supply) Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

¶12

4. Bapu s/o. Jagalu Dhormare, Age: 42 years, Occu.: Agril. R/o. Mendha, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad.

¶13

5. Dhananjay s/o. Nagurao Gule, Age: 58 Years, Occu.:Agril. R/o. Mendha, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. NON-APPLICANTS (No.1 to 3 are Orig. Respdt.& No.4 & 5 is Orig.Petitioner)

¶14

09.2014RA.odt

¶15

¶16

...

¶17

Mr.V.D.Salunke,Advocateh/f.Mr.
M.A.Thorbole, Advocate for the Applicant
Mr.A.R.Borulkar,AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Mr.R.P.Bhumkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4
and 5.

¶18

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE, J.

¶19

Reserved on : 05.10.2016
 Pronounced on : 07.10.2016

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

1.This Review Application seeks review
of the judgment and order dated 05.03.2013
passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.335/2012.

¶22

2.The learned counsel appearing for

¶23

the review applicant submits that the
District Supply Officer should not have
cancelled the license to run the fair price

¶24

shop. The said decision of the District
Supply Officer to cancel the license to run

¶25

the fair price shop is not sustainable in
law. He did not follow the principles of
natural justice. The learned Minister for

¶26

09.2014RA.odt

¶27

¶28

Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection,
who heard second Revision, recorded the
findings of facts and then passed the order
in favour of the applicant. It is submitted
that the order passed by the learned Minister
for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection was well within revisional
jurisdiction. While deciding the Writ
Petition, this Court relied upon the decision
in the case of Shivaji Tulshiram Thakre Vs.

¶29

State of Maharashtra and others1. However, in

¶30

the facts of that case, the Minister
exercised the review jurisdiction. He further
invited my attention to the grounds taken in
the Review Application and submits that the
Review Application deserves to be allowed.

¶31

3.On the other hand, the learned

¶32

counsel appearing for respondent nos.4 and 5
i.e. original petitioners submits that the
review application is not filed by the

¶33

1 2012 (3) All M.R. 789

¶34

09.2014RA.odt

¶35

¶36

Advocate on record in the Writ Petition and
therefore, same is not maintainable. There is
no error apparent on the face of record so as

¶37

to review the judgment and order dated
05.03.2013 passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.335/2012. In support of his
contention that, the review application is

¶38

not maintainable, he placed reliances on the
exposition of law in the case of Mohan Lal

¶39

Bagla Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Luchknow
and other2and also in the case of

¶40

T.N.Electricity Board and Anr. Vs. N. Raju

¶41

Reddiar and Anr.3. He further submits that

¶42

the findings recorded by the learned Minister

¶43

for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection in second Revision filed by the
applicant are without any basis. There is no
reference in his order that he has summoned
and perused the original record of the case.
A findings recorded and the order passed by

¶44

2 AIR 2005 Allahabad 308

¶45

3 AIR 1997 SC 1005

¶46

09.2014RA.odt

¶47

¶48

the learned Minister was beyond scope of the

¶49

revision. The relatives of the review
applicant are in Government service and he
is rich person. Therefore, the observations

¶50

by the Minister that, to give one more
opportunity to the review applicant to run
fair price shop by paying Rs.10,000/- fine,

¶51

is nothing but giving an opportunity to
indulge into playing fraud. It is stated in
the application that the dead persons filed

¶52

complaint against review applicant, is not
correct. He invited my attention to the
affidavit-in-reply in that respect, and in

¶53

particular para 4 and 5 of the reply. It is
submitted that the Minister has made adverse

¶54

remarks against the applicant and also
imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-. The applicant

¶55

did not challenge the order of Minister

¶56

whereby the adverse remarks are made against

¶57

him. Therefore, relying upon the averments in
the affidavit-in-reply, the learned counsel

¶58

09.2014RA.odt

¶59

¶60

appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5
submits that the Review Application may be
rejected.

¶61

4.I have given careful consideration
to the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the review applicant, the
learned AGP appearing for the respondent –
State and the learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos.4 and 5. Upon careful perusal

¶62

of the grounds taken in the Review

¶63

Application, none of the grounds gives rise
for recalling/reviewing the judgment and
order passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.335/2012. During the course of hearing of

¶64

the Writ Petition, the learned counsel
Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni appeared for the review

¶65

applicant i.e. respondent No.4 in Writ
Petition and submitted that, the scope of
revision before the learned Minister is not

¶66

restricted and it is open for the Minister to
review the order passed by the District

¶67

09.2014RA.odt

¶68

¶69

Supply Officer, if he finds that the District
Supply Officer has not followed principles of
natural justice, or material placed on record
has not been considered. In that view of the
matter, this Court placed reliance on the
decision rendered in the case of Shivaji
Tulshiram Thakre (supra).

¶70

5.Upon careful perusal of para 6 to 10

¶71

of the judgment and order under review, it is
abundantly clear that, this Court has treated
and considered the proceedings filed by the
applicant before the Minister as revision and
upon appreciating the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and
the material placed on record, has taken a
view that the order passed by the Minister is
beyond the scope of the revision, that too,
while entertaining second revision filed by
the present applicant. This Court in para 6
to 10 of the judgment has made detailed
observations why the order passed by the

¶72

09.2014RA.odt

¶73

¶74

Minister was beyond the scope of second
revision.

¶75

6.It is not necessary for this Court
to reiterate the reasons / observations made
in the judgment and order under review,
suffice it to say that the judgment under
review needs no interference. There is no
error apparent on the face of record so as to
review the judgment and order under review.
Hence the Review Application stands rejected.

¶76

7.The Civil Application No.13242/2016

¶77

stands disposed of accordingly.

¶78

 Sd/-
 [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE

¶79

DDC

Namdeo Mahadeo Mali v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namdeo Mahadeo Mali v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Vitthalrao Songire Vs M/S Labhshetwar and Sakkarwar Constructions through It S Partners Vijay Ramdas Sakkarwar and Anothe

Gaurishankar Rukhmeshchandra Mishra Vs Asaram Shankar Jagdale and Ors.

Bansilal Pokhardas Motwani Vs Satish Pralhadrao Bodle and Others

State of Maha Vs Subhansingh Lubhansingh Patil

State of Maha Vs Sharad Dashrath Sawre and Anr.

State of Maha Vs Arvind Shriram Lad