RAMDHAN SITARAM THORAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) The above petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to the orders both dated 25/04/2011 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra, by which order the Revisions filed by the respondent No.4 against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 07/12/2010 came to be allowed and resultantly the petitioner's fair price shop and the licence for retail distribution of kerosene came to be cancelled.

(3.) In the present proceedings the matter had reached by way of Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. The Additional Commissioner by his order dated 07/12/2010 had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and set aside the order passed by the District Supply Officer and thereby had reinstated the licence in respect of the fair price shop as well as the licence for retail kerosene. The Additional Commissioner in his order, as can be seen, has made observations, which are comprised in Item Nos.1 to 5 before the operative part of the said order. The Additional Commissioner has held that the proceedings do not disclose as to whether the reply of the petitioner to the District Supply Officer has been dealt with. In so far as Item No.3 is concerned, since the petitioner had kept the shop closed between the period 06/01/2010 to 30/03/2010 and the petitioner's card holders were attached to the shop of one Shivaji Palkar. It was necessary for the authorities to record as to who was responsible for the irregularities, if any. The Additional Commissioner has observed that it does not appear that such an enquiry was conducted. In so far as Item No.4 is concerned, the District Supply Officer has not dealt with the case of the petitioner that prior to the instant action, no action was taken against the petitioner. The Additional Commissioner has further held that the record also does not disclose that pursuant to order dated 06/05/2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Amravati Division, Amravati, the District Supply Officer has carried out inspection of the shop of the petitioner.