Disposed¶20

Gram Panchayat Sagra, Thr. Its Upsarpanch v. State of Maha., Thr. Ministry of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2025WP/1029/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair Price Shop licence; Gram Panchayat Sagra complaint; District Supply Officer Chandrapur; permanent cancellation of licence; Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975; Clause 24; revision versus review; Clause 24(1); Clause 24(2); Reviewing Authority; penalty Rs.5,000/-; no source of income ground; respondent No.4 permitted to operate shop; interim order; stand over after three weeks; respondents to file reply; Nagpur Bench; Anil L. Pansare, J.; Writ Petition No.1029 of 2025.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gram Panchayat Sagra, Thr. Its Upsarpanch vs State of Maha., Thr. Ministry of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mumbai and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Outcome

Disposed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Legality of respondent No.1's order allowing review of the permanently cancelled Fair Price Shop licence of respondent No.4, imposing a Rs.5,000/- penalty and permitting respondent No.4 to continue operating the shop, which is challenged by the petitioner Gram Panchayat, Sagra. +1 more

¶15

Key takeaways

Clause 24 of the Order of 1975 is divided into three parts (first dealing with the revisional power of the State Government, second with the power of review, third with re-review); the impugned order appears to have been passed under sub-clause (1) of Clause 24, and therefore the petitioner appears to have incorrectly argued that respondent No.1 travelled beyond jurisdiction under Clause 24(2).obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Writ Petition No.1029 of 2025 - Gram Panchayat, Sagra (through its Upsarpanch), Tah. Bhadravati, Dist. Chandrapur v. State of Maharashtra (Ministry of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection) and others. Interim order by Anil L. Pansare, J. The petitioner challenges the action of respondent No.1 (Reviewing Authority under Clause 24, Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975): after the District Supply Officer, Chandrapur permanently cancelled respondent No.4's Fair Price Shop licence on villagers' complaints (irregularities upheld by respondent No.2, order dated 21/08/2023), respondent No.1 allowed the review not on the Clause 24(2) grounds but solely because respondent No.4 would have no source of income, imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/- and permitted respondent No.4 to keep operating the shop. The Court observed that Clause 24 has three parts (revision / review / re-review), that the impugned order appears to have been passed under Clause 24(1) (revisional power) rather than Clause 24(2) (power of review), and that the petitioner's contention that respondent No.1 travelled beyond jurisdiction under Clause 24(2) therefore appears incorrect. No final adjudication was made: at the petitioner's request the matter was stood over by three weeks, with liberty to the respondents to file replies. No precedent case law is cited or relied upon.

¶1

1 / 2

¶2

917.wp.1029.25

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition No.1029 of 2025

¶5

Gram Panchayat , Sagra, through Its Upsarpanch, Tehsil Bhadravati, District Chandrapur vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra, through Ministry of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others

¶7

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶8

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶9

Mr. K.R. Giripunje h/f Dr. Renuka Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. H.R. Dhumale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mrs. A.R. Taiwade, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶10

On 25^th February, 2025, the following order was passed:

¶11

“1. The petition arises out of the licence to run Fair Price Shop at Village Sagra, Tah. Bhadravati, Dist. Chandrapur. The respondent No.4 was holding the said licence. The villagers had lodged complaint with respondent No.3 – District Supply Officer, Chandrapur as regards the irregularities committed by respondent No.4, which includes withholding the fair price essential commodities, discrepancies in weight while distributing the commodities, do not issue receipts, shop not opening regularly and so on.

¶12

The respondent No.3 after having conducted enquiry and granting hearing to the respondent No.4 found substance in the complaint and thus, cancelled the licence permanently. The said order was assailed by the respondent No.4 before the respondent No.2, but of no avail. The matter was then carried before the respondent No.1, Reviewing Authority under Clause 24(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975. The respondent No.1 allowed the review, not on the grounds mentioned in Sub-clause (2) of the

¶13

917.wp.1029.25

¶14

2 / 2

¶15

Clause 24, but on the ground that respondent No.4 will have no source of income. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 has imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- and thereby, in a way has certified the findings rendered by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, but permitted respondent No.4 to operate the Fair Price Shop.

¶16

Issue notice for final disposal at admission stage to the respondents, returnable after four weeks.

¶17

Shri H. R. Dhumale, learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.”

¶18

The learned A.P.P. so also the learned Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the order under question has been passed by respondent No.1 under clause 24(1) and not under clause 24(2) of the Order of 1975.

¶19

I have gone through the impugned order. It appears that the revision was filed before respondent No.1 against the order dated 21/08/2023 passed by the respondent No.2. Clause 24 of the Order of 1975 is divided into three parts. The first clause deals with the revisional power of the State Government; the second clause deals with the power of review and the third clause refers to re-review. The order impugned appears to have been passed under sub-clause (1) of Clause 24 of the Order of 1975. The petitioner, therefore, appears to have incorrectly argued that respondent No.1 has travelled beyond jurisdiction under Clause 24(2) of the Order of 1975.

¶20

At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, stand over after three weeks.

¶21

In the meantime, the respondents may file reply.

¶22

(Anil L. Pansare, J.)

¶23

*sandesh

¶24

Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 07/04/2025 10:59:02

Gram Panchayat Sagra, Thr. Its Upsarpanch v. State of Maha., Thr. Ministry of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gram Panchayat Sagra, Thr. Its Upsarpanch v. State of Maha., Thr. Ministry of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sham S/O. Sheshrao Mate vs State of Maha., Thr. Collector, Buldhana and Others

Vasudeo Anandrao Pawar and Others vs Ashok Pandurang Adhau and Others

Sau. Sushma Yashwant Patil vs Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, Thr. Superintending Engineer, Yavatmal Circle vs Vaibhav Spintex Pvt. Ltd., through Its Director, Smt. Usha Sunil Bhandari

Shri. N. Krishnamurti Narayan and Other vs Superintendent Engineer, Maha. Airport Development Authority Ltd, Nagpur and Others

Mohd. Salim Abdul Rauf Siddiqui and Others vs State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal and Others