Dismissed

Tanaji Dattu Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2024WP/1062/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Beneficiaries of a fair price shop challenged the Minister's order setting aside the Commissioner's cancellation of the shop's licence. The High Court held the cancellation lacked evidentiary support: inspection reports found only minor or medium defects, 140 of 150 consumers had no grievance, and misappropriation was not established. Petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Tanaji Dattu Patil and Ors. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2-WP-1062-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1062 OF 2024

¶4

Tanaji Dattu Patil and Ors. …. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. …. Respondents

¶7

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANU SHANKARSA SHANKARSA DHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2024.09.09 17:50:30 +0530

¶8

Mr. Gautam T. Kanchanpur, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 – State. Mr. Deval Anja a/w Mr. Shripad Jagdale i/b Mr. P. G. Jagdale, Advocates for Respondent No.7.

¶9

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

¶10

DATE : 4^th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

By consent of both sides heard finally at stage of admission.

¶13

This petition takes exception to the order dated 4^th October, 2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 whereby, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Pune Division, Pune was set aside.

¶14

Shantanu Dhudum 1/11

¶15

2-WP-1062-2024.doc

¶16

The facts which lead to the filing the present petition can

¶17

be narrated in brief as under.

¶18

The Petitioners claim themselves to be the beneficiaries of the fair price commodities shop run by the Respondent No.7, Dhanlaxmi Mahila Bachat Gat. According to the Petitioners, some villagers found that they receive less grains than purchased from the Respondent No.7. On 02/08/2021 a complaint was made to the Supply Officer in respect of the said Act of Respondent No.7. One more complaint came to be filed on 1^st December, 2021 to Taluka Supply Officer. On 27/12/2021 Respondent No.5 conducted an inquiry and submitted his report to Respondent No.4. Wherein, it was found that there are certain defects in maintaining of the record by Respondent No.4. Pursuant thereto a show cause notice dated 14^th February, 2022 came to be issued to the Respondent No.7. District Supply Officer initiated proceedings against Respondent No.7 and order was passed on 8^th June, 2022 whereby, the deposit amount of Respondent No.7 was forfeited and the suspension of the fair price shop was directed for a period of three months. A revision came to be filed by Respondent No.7 before Respondent No.3 under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Schedule Commodities Regulation of Shantanu Dhudum 2/11

¶19

2-WP-1062-2024.doc

¶20

Distribution Regulation Act, 1975, which was withdrawn. The Petitioners then filed Revision on 01/02/2022 for cancellation of the licence of Respondent No.7, permanently. This authority i.e. Respondent No.3 by passing order dated 13/12/2022 allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the District Supply Officer dated 8^th June, 2022. It was directed by this Authority to cancel the licence issued in favour of Respondent No.7. Further direction was issued for recovery of the amount from Respondent No.7 for distributing the grains in the name of deceased as well as migrated persons. Respondent No.7 being aggrieved by this order preferred revision before Revenue Minister. This revision came to be partly allowed and the order passed by Commissioner of cancellation of Authority/ Licence issued to Respondent No. 7 being set aside, this petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Minister has committed error in passing the impugned order by exceeding the jurisdiction vested in him. In order to support his submissions, he placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the case of Shivaji Tulshiram Thakre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors¹ . It is his

¶22

1 2012(3) ALL MR 789

Shantanu Dhudum

3/11

2-WP-1062-2024.doc

further submission that there is report of the Supply Officer indicating that defects found during the inspection were considered as serious in nature by District Supply Officer. It is his submissions that it was open for the Commissioner to pass independent order of cancellation of the license in view of the provisions of Maharashtra Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1975.

¶27

In order to support his submission, he drew attention of Court to finding recorded indicating defects in the working of Respondent No.7 are serious in nature and in fact the Commissioner has directed recovery of the amount from Respondent No.7 with observations that this is a case of Respondent No.7 having distributed the food grains, though such persons have either died or migrated. To support his submission, he placed reliance on judgments of this Court in case of Dattatraya Marotrao Sakhare Vs. Hon’ble Minister, Food and Civil Supply Department, Maharashtra & Ors² and Balbhim S/o Sukhdeo Limbkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.³ . Finally, it is argued that the closure the fair price shop run by Respondent No.7 has not caused any inconvenience to the villagers as the Government has already made arrangement of

¶28

2 2013(2) Mh. L. J.

¶29

3 2013(5) Mh. L. J.

¶30

Shantanu Dhudum 4/11

¶31

2-WP-1062-2024.doc

¶32

alternative supply of essentials through another Ration Shop, which is situated at the distance of about 1 km from village.

¶33

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.7 opposed the said submissions by contending that the Supply Officer in his report as on inspection of the record has never held that it is a case of the distribution of the food grains in the name of deceased or migrated persons. In fact according to him in the first report submitted by him, it is recorded that there is no substance in the complaint. According to him, owing to political pressure, second time inspection is done, wherein it is stated that the defects founds are minor or medium in nature. It is his submission that this village has about 150 families out of which 140 consumers have tendered affidavit before the authority indicating that they have no grievance in respect of the conducting of the business by Respondent No.7. It is his submissions that out of personal issues, Petitioners have filed complaint. It is his further submissions that the Commissioner has committed error in cancelling the licence of Respondent No.7 without there being any evidence indicating any misappropriation has been done by Respondent No.7. It is his submission that having regard to the fact

¶34

that hardly any person from village has complained against Shantanu Dhudum 5/11

¶35

2-WP-1062-2024.doc

¶36

Respondent No.7, and as there are no serious disputes raised with regard to the supply, this is not a case of cancellation of the licence.

¶37

There cannot be any dispute made with regard to the fact that Regulation and Distribution order of 1975 does not specifically contemplates circumstances in which suspension of licence of a fair price shop and cancellation thereof. Though, no such specific provision is found, it is needless to say that in a case where serious defects are found in the running of a fair price shop, the cancellation of licence would be justified. Similarly, it needs to be seen whether there is consistent breach or a case of established misappropriation. In each case, it is necessary to consider all attending circumstances before passing order of cancellation of licence or even suspension thereof.

¶38

There is no dispute about the fact that in the village concerned there are about 150 members were beneficiaries of the fair price shop. Out of these 150 persons overwhelming majority i.e. about 140 persons have given affidavit stating before the concerned authority that they have no grievance against Respondent No.7. In this regard, it would be relevant to take note of the inspection reports submitted by the Supply Officer. First report indicates that no Shantanu Dhudum 6/11

¶39

2-WP-1062-2024.doc

¶40

substance is found in the complaint. Even second report indicates that Tahsildar, Bhudargad has made inquiry not only of recording statement of the concerned persons but the record of Respondent No.7 was also verified. After due verification, he drew conclusion that the defects in the conducting of the fair price shop by Respondent No.7 are either minor or medium in nature. This report does not even remotely, indicates that there is a distribution of grains in the name of deceased or migrated persons or any misappropriation has been done by Respondent No.7.

¶41

At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Pune Division, Pune. Perusal of his order indicates that in paragraph 5 though certain observations are made which read thus;

¶42

ß5- izdj.kkrhy vtZnkj ;kaps orhus dj.;kr vkysyk fjfOgtu vtZ] vtZnkj o tkc ns.kkj ;kapk ;qDrhokn o miyC/k dkxni=s ;kaps voyksdu dsys vlrk] izdj.kh [kkyhyizek.ks fu"d"kZ fu?kr vkgs %&

¶43

[kkyhy dksVkZps dkxni=kaps voyksdu dsys vlrk vls fnlwu ;srs dh] tkc ns.kkj Ø- 1 ;kaps jkLrHkko nqdkuke/kwu ykHkkF;kZauk 'kkldh; ifjek.kkis{kk deh /kkU; okVi dj.ks] ikorh u ns.ks] e;r] LFkykarfjr] vk/kkj flMhax u >kysY;k ykHkkF;kZauk /kkU; deh ns.ks] lnj ykHkkF;kZaph ukos deh u djrk vkWuykbZu forj.k dsY;kps fnlwu ;s.ks] js/kudkMZe/;s [kkMk[kksM dj.ks b- rØkjh izkIr >kyseqGs lnj nqdkukpk ijokuk tqyS 2022 rs lIVsacj 2022 i;Zar fuyafcr dj.kspk vkns'k ftYgk

Shantanu Dhudum

7/11

2-WP-1062-2024.doc

iqjoBk vf/kdkjh dksYgkiwj ;kauh ikfjr dsyk vkgs-

¶48

[kkyhy dksVkZP;k lafpdse/;s rgflynkj HkqnjxM ;kapk fn- 27@12@2021 jksthpk vgoky vlwu vgokyke/;s xsY;k 2 o"kkZiklwu efgU;kyk 3 fdyks xgw o 1 fdyks rkanwG vls 4 fdyks /kkU; deh nsr vlysckcr] ikorh fnyh tkr ulysckcr] bysDVªkWfud otu dkV;koj /kkU; ekstys vlrk deh /kkU; vlysckcr] fu;fer o eksQr /kkU; nsrkuk R;ke/;s rQkor vlysckcr] /kkU; us.;kl ykHkkFkhZ xsys vlrk tkLr osG Fkkacowu ?ksrysckcr o vjsjkohph Hkk"kk dsysckcrps ykHkkF;kZaps tckc vlysckcr uewn dsys vkgs- lafpdse/;s ojhy rØkjh uewn vlysys rØkjh vtZ o tckc lekfo"V vkgsr-

¶49

lkoZtfud forj.k O;oLFksvarxZr xjhc o xjtw ykHkkF;kZauk 'kklukus Bjowu fnysY;k ifjek.kkuqlkj o njkuqlkj ;kstukfugk; /kkU; forfjr dj.ks] forfjr dsysY;k /kkU;kph ikorh rkRdkG ns.ks ,o<sp 'kklukus usewu fnysY;k dkedkt dj.ks gs jkLrHkko nqdkunkjkoj dk;n;kus ca/kudkjd vkgs- R;kizek.ks nqdkunkjkus dkedkt u djrk 'kkldh; fu;ekaph ik;eYyh dsyh vkgs- ykHkkF;kZauk fu;fer njegk /kkU; okVi dsys tkr ukgh] rlsp 'kkldh; ifjek.kkuqlkj /kkU; forfjr dsys tkr ulY;kps fnlwu ;srs- dkMZ/kkjdkauk ikorh fnyh tkr ukgh- R;kpizek.ks e;r] LFkykarfjr] vk/kkj flMhax u >kysY;k ykHkkF;kZauk /kkU; deh fnys vlY;kps ftYgk iqjoBk vf/kdkjh dksYgkiwj ;kaps vkns'kke/;s uewn vkgs- okLrfod 'kklu fu;ekizek.ks lacaf/kr cpr xVkus e;r] LFkykarfjr vk/kkj flMhax u >kysY;k ykHkkF;kZauk /kkU; ns.ks vfHkiszr ukghcpr xVkus v'kk ykHkkF;kZaps /kkU; deh fnys vkgs] ek= vkWuykbZu iz.kkyhe/;s lnj ykHkkF;kZaph ukos fnlwu ;sr vlwu lnjph ukos deh u djrk lnj f'k/kkif=dsyk ns; vlysY;k /kkU;kps okVi >kys vlY;kps fnlwu ;srs- Eg.ktsp cpr xVkus dsoG vkWuykbZu /kkU; okVi dsY;kps Hkklfoys vlwu ykHkkF;kZacjkscjp 'kklukph Qlo.kwd dsY;kps izFken'kZuh fnlwu ;srs- ;ko:u tkc ns.kkj Ø- 1 ;kauh 'kkldh; /kkU;kpk vigkj dsY;kph 'kD;rk ukdkjrk ;sr ukgh-Þ

Shantanu Dhudum

8/11

2-WP-1062-2024.doc

Now question arises as to whether there is supporting material to draw such conclusion. There is no dispute of the fact that the report of Supply Officer is only relied upon by Commissioner. In the light of the reports of Supply Officer, there is no such material supporting the findings recorded by Commissioner about distribution of grains in name of migrants or deceased persons. Apart from this, it is pertinent to note that Commissioner has merely recorded that the possibility of misappropriation is not ruled out. It is thus clear that even this authority is not sure about any misappropriation has been committed by the Respondent No.7. At any rate, such findings can not be accepted in absence of any material evidence being placed before the authority. In such circumstances, this order has been passed apparently without any evidence, hence not sustainable.

¶54

The District Supply Officer, on the other hand has rightly taken in to consideration the complaint made by the some of the consumers of the fair price shop. There is nothing on record to indicate that at any time herein before any complaint at all was received by the said authority against Respondent No.7. In the light of these facts, the District Supply Officer was convinced to direct suspension of the licence of Respondent No.7 for a period of three Shantanu Dhudum 9/11

¶55

2-WP-1062-2024.doc

¶56

months with forfeited of deposit amount, which order seems to be fair in the facts of the case.

¶57

Having regard to the aforestated facts, this Court finds that the Commissioner has passed order of cancellation of the licence without any material evidence to that effect before him and without a case being made out for the same. No doubt the Revisional Authority would have limited jurisdiction to cause interference in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. However, when this Court finds that the Appellate Authority has passed order of cancellation of the licence sans any material / evidence on record, no fault can be found with the order of the Revisional Authority of over turning the said order.

¶58

The judgments cited supra on behalf of Petitioners have no application to the present case, as in the said cases, there was evidence to effect cancellation of licence, which is absent in the present case.

¶59

In the facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Minister is fully justified, as this is a case wherein, there are no mass complaints against the Respondent No.7. On the contrary, majority

¶60

of the people i.e. 140 persons out of 150 consumers have no Shantanu Dhudum 10/11

¶61

2-WP-1062-2024.doc

¶62

complaint of whatsoever nature against Respondent No.7. Similarly, there is nothing on record to indicate that any previous complaint being made against this Respondent. Having regard to the over all circumstances of the case, this Court finds no reason or justification for causing interference in the impugned order.

¶63

Hence, the petition stands dismissed.

¶64

Shantanu Dhudum 11/11

Tanaji Dattu Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Tanaji Dattu Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Msrtc), Nashik Thr.Divisional Controller vs Nathu Shivram Jagtap(Deceased-Deleted and Anr.)

Aayyaswamy Vaiyyaburi Pillai vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh Shankar Punaskar Vs the Competent Authority Alias Residential Deputy Collector Ratnagiri and Ors.

Shriram Dhanaji Korde and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dnyaneshwar Tulshiram Korde and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ajaykumar S. Yadav and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.