SHAIKH HAMID SHAIKH MAHMOOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM the uncontroverted facts as averred in the present petition and solemnly affirmed by the petitioner, we are constrained to note that our judicial conscience simply is shocked and we are left more than stunned. On reading the whole petition and after hearing Shri Talekar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, we are taken a back and starting wondering whether the Rule of law had vanished when the impugned order was passed by the concerned authorities of the State Government.

(2.) THE precis of the petition is exactly very precise. He has averred to be a citizen of India and an educated landless unemployed without any other source of livelihood. In response to the invitation of the District Supply Officer for applications for licence of wholesale dealer of kerosene, the petitioner had applied for such a licence in the prescribed form and after due scrutiny and satisfaction the District Supply Officer, respondent No. 3 recommended his name to the Collector-the respondent No. 2, the Controller of rationing after getting approval of the District Collector issued to the petitioner a licence in Form II for purchase, sale and storage of kerosene as wholesale dealer in July 1987. The said licence was to remain valid upto 31-12-87 subject to its annual renewal. The petitioner has further disclosed that at that time about 22 such licences were issued by the concerned authorities. The petitioner has also averred that along with him four licences were issued to the wholesale dealers and two such licences were issued after the issuance of licence to the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that he complied with all the required conditions such as payment of licence fee and deposit of security and all other necessary changes. He was waiting for the order of allotment from the respondent No. 3 who told the petitioner that he would issue the allotment order for the month of August 1987. Though, all other wholesale dealers got allotment orders in the first week of August 1987, the petitioner received the same on 17-1-87. On receipt of the allotment order, he immediately sent a bank draft on 21-8-1987 for Rs. 24,267/- to M/s. Sitaram Rameshwardas and Co. , who was appointed as the supplier of kerosene to the wholesale dealers. The petitioner had paid full amount for 12000 litres of kerosene in advance, for one tanker and he was to take the balance after some time. The petitioner was surprised to note that inspite of payment the said M/s. Sitaram and Co. was not supplying him kerosene and therefore, he personally met the proprietor of the said company. The petitioner was shocked to hear from him that no kerosene would be supplied to the petitioner as the District Supply Officer, Jalna respondent No. 3 had instructed him not to supply kerosene until further orders. The petitioner immediately rushed to see the respondent No. 3 on 1st September, 1987. He was told by the respondent No. 3 that he was not able to supply the kerosene to the petitioner as he was asked to withhold the same. Soon thereafter, it appears that the petitioner received an order dated 4-9-87 from the District Supply Officer, Jalna, suspending his licence as wholesale dealer of kerosene. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Article 14, being aggrieved by the said order passed by the respondent No. 3 challenging its legality and validity and also questioning the bona fides underneath the same on the ground that the impugned order was passed mala fide and at the instance of the local M. L. A. who had prevailed upon the concerned Minister to cancel the petitioners wholesale kerosene dealership.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides. We have also very carefully gone through the proceedings. We are rather surprised to note that the respondents have not cared to file an affidavit in reply to controvert or deny the serious allegations made by the petitioner in the petition. The petitioner had not minced any words as he has put forward his case straightway alleged mala fides on the part of the authorities who have unlawfully cancelled the lawfully granted licence of wholesale dealership of kerosene acting at the instance and under the pressure of one Shri Vilas Kharat, the then sitting Member of Legislative Assembly, Ambad, who appears to have written a letter to the Minister of State for Food and Civil Supplies, Maharashtra State, Shri Vilasrao Sawant, as then he was, requesting the Minister to cancel the licence issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has further averred categorically and in clear terms that the Minister wrote a demi official letter to Shri Surve the District Collector, Jalna, respondent No. 2 ordering him to cancel the petitioners licence. The petitioner had reproduced in paragraph 15 of his petition the English version of the letter dated 21-8-1987 addressed by Shri V. C. Badiwadekar, Under Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Dept. Bombay, Mantralaya. He has also annexed to the petition the letter written by the local M. L. A. Shri Kharat, Advocate to Shri Vilasrao Sawant, the Minister. He has also annexed the Marathi demi official letter addressed by the Under Secretary to respondent No. 2. The Under Secretary was careful enough to not only communicate the order of the Minister but also enclosed a copy of the letter of the M. L. A. alongwith the said demi official letter. Both these letters speak volumes unequivocally to establish beyond any doubt that the petitioners licence granted to him legally was cancelled arbitrarily, maliciously and mala fide. We would prefer to reproduce herein below the demi official letter for instant reference and appreciation of the allegations of the petitioners: v. C. Badiwadekar, Under Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Dept. , Bombay, Mantralaya, D. O. No. KER-1587/2825/cs-27 dated 21-8-1987.