Mangesh Vishnu Darekar vs Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Customer Protection Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mangesh Vishnu Darekar vs Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Customer Protection Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order quashed and set aside; Revision Application restored to the file of the State Government for decision afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the parties; in the event of an adverse order, it is not to be given effect to for two weeks; State Government requested to decide preferably within three months from 23 December 2025, on which date the parties shall appear before it; Writ Petition disposed.

¶order clause (i)

Issue for consideration

Whether the Minister (Respondent No.1), in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, could have interfered with the orders impugned before him on the basis of the assurance given.

Court's answer

Since the Minister had interfered with the orders passed by the authorities below on the basis of the assurance given by Respondent No.4, the Court considered it expedient in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the revision application back to the Minister for afresh decision on merits and in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No.13804 of 2025, N.J. Jamadar, J., 11 December 2025 — Fair price shop licence. The Petitioner challenged the order dated 15 September 2025 of the Minister, Food and Civil Supplies, whereby the Minister set aside the District Supply Officer's order dated 12 September 2024, resulting in cancellation of the licence granted to the Petitioner to operate a fair price shop, along with the order dated 17 June 2025 dismissing his appeal. Notice had been issued on the arguable question whether the Minister (R1), in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, could have interfered with the orders impugned before him on the basis of the assurance given. Since the interference rested on the assurance given by Respondent No.4, and both sides were agreeable to a remand, the Court held it expedient to quash and set aside the impugned order and restore the Revision Application to the State Government for afresh decision on merits and in accordance with law after an effective opportunity of hearing to the parties; any adverse order is not to be given effect to for two weeks; decision requested preferably within three months from 23 December 2025, on which date the parties shall appear before the State Government. Writ Petition disposed.

2025:BHC-AS:54742

905 wp 13804 of 2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.13804 OF 2025

Mangesh Vishnu Darekar

... Petitioner

versus

Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Customer Protection Dept. and Ors.

… Respondents

Mr. Sudhir Hardikar, for Petitioner.

Mrs. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for State.

Mr. Tushar Sonawane with Mr. Piyush Toshnival i/by Mr. Ashish Pawar, for Respondent No.4.

Mr. Vilas T. Raut, Respondent No.4 present in court.

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

DATE : 11 DECEMBER 2025

P.C.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 15 September 2025

passed by the Minister, Food and Civil Supplies, whereby the Minister has set

aside the order dated 12 September 2024 passed by the District Supply Officer thereby cancelling the licence granted in favour of the Petitioner to operate a fair price shop, and the order dated 17 June 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner thereagainst came to be dismissed.

When the Petition was listed before the court on 10 June 2025, this Court was persuaded to issue notice as an arguable question as to whether, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the Minister (R1) could have interfered with the orders impugned before him, on the basis of the assurance given by

SSP 1/3

905 wp 13804 of 2025.doc

the Petitioner, arose for consideration.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4, on instructions, submits that the revision application may be remanded to the Minister for afresh decision on merits.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is not averse to the aforesaid proposition.

Since the Minister has interfered with the orders passed by the authorities below, on the basis of the assurance given by the Respondent No.4, the court considers it expedient in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the revision application back to the Minister for afresh decision in accordance with law and on merits.

Hence, the following order :

ORDER

(i) The impugned order stands quashed and set aside.

(ii) Revision Application stands restored to the file of the State Government for a decision afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the parties.

(iii) In the event, the State Government passes an order which is adverse to the interest of the Petitioner, the same may not be given effect to, for a period of two weeks.

(iv) The State Government is requested to decide the revision

SSP 2/3

905 wp 13804 of 2025.doc

application as expeditiously as possible, and, preferably within a period of

three months from 23 December 2025, on which date the parties shall appear before the State Government.

(v) Writ Petition stands disposed.

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

SSP 3/3

Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/12/2025 18:40:47