DHYANESHWAR MAHADEO AMBURE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Joshi, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 finally by consent, by making Rule returnable forthwith.

(2.) The contention is, the Deputy Commissioner of Supplies, on 18.06.2007, allowed revision and set aside the orders of District Supply Officer (DSO) dated 08.05.2007 and directed enquiry on six points. Ignoring that, a show cause notice dated 29.08.2008 was served upon the petitioner which was replied by him. On 14.01.2009, the Tahsildar recommended a minor punishment. The DSO overlooked all this and on 15.06.2009 canceled the authorization of fair price shop forfeiting entire security deposit. The petitioner raised his grievance before the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies on 06.07.2009 and that authority directed fine of Rs.1,000/ to be inflicted upon the petitioner and restored his authorization. Respondent No. 3 complainant then approached the Hon'ble Minister and the Hon'ble Minister has restored the earlier order of cancellation of authorization.

(3.) Shri Patil, learned counsel has invited attention to Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991 to urge that without following the prescribed procedure, punishment has been inflicted for defaults of serious nature and the Hon'ble Minister has overlooked the three categories of defaults as noted therein. The learned counsel further states that the material on record showing that nobody had complained against the establishment of the petitioner has not been evaluated. The fact that in past 12 years, there were no such incident is also overlooked.