DINESH BANSILAL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitions are admitted for final hearing and interim orders granted by this Court on 10th December, 2009 hold the field. This Court on that date by reasoned order stayed the operation and effect of impugned order dated 30.07.2009 passed by Respondent No. 2 - Hon'ble Minister. It also directed filing of an affidavit to show compliance with the orders dated 03.12.2008 in Writ Petition No. 4122 of 2007. Inquiry was also directed to be completed in relation to excess amount of kerosene received by Respondent No. 7 to find out whether it was sold in open market or was handed over to authorized persons. The said order was continued on 27.01.2010 when Rule was issued. This order dated 27.01.2010 came to be questioned in Special Leave Petition No. 20803 of 2010 and it was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 12.07.2010. Thereafter an application for expeditious hearing of writ petition and for dismissal of writ petition came to be filed. On 10.04.2013, this Court directed application seeking dismissal of petition to be listed after four months. On 20.11.2013, petition was directed to be listed at the end of the board that is how writ petition has been heard finally. It is not in dispute that the challenge involved in Writ Petition No. 3869 of 2009 is identical and almost all relevant developments in both the matters are also same. The only difference in two matters is Respondent No. 7-Wholeseller of Kerosene is different and quantity of Kerosene allegedly sold by them in open market is also different. Both the Respondents concerns in fact belong to same family. In fact, the respective counsel have argued Writ Petition No. 3868 of 2009 only at length. Respondent No. 7 has relied upon a judgment delivered on 10.07.2012 in Regular Criminal Case No. 52 of 2011, acquitting the accused in person from the offence under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, 1955. Those accused are the persons concerned with administration and management of Respondent No. 7.

(2.) Shri Gordey, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in both the matters has invited attention to the orders of this Court dated 03.12.2008 in Writ Petition No. 4122 of 2007. He states that the present petitioner was one of the petitioners in said writ petition which was entertained in public interest. On 23.07.2008, Respondent No. 4 - District Supply Officer (DSO) cancelled licence and forfeited security deposit of Respondent No. 7. The appeal preferred by Respondent No. 7 against that order has been dismissed by the appellate authority on 25.08.2008 after hearing present petitioner, who intervened in the matter. Thereafter above mentioned Writ Petition No. 4122 of 2007 was disposed of with certain directions on 03.12.2008.

(3.) Respondent No. 7 in this background approached Respondent No. 2 - Hon'ble Minister in revision and that revision has been allowed by the impugned order dated 30.07.2009. Respondent No. 7 has restored licence back and has ordered inquiry to find out whether the excess quantity of kerosene has been misappropriated by respective Respondent No. 7. Shri Gordey, learned Senior Advocate submits that concurrent finding of mishandling or misappropriation by Respondent No. 7 has not been found to be either erroneous or perverse and hence restoration of kerosene licence is unsustainable. He further contends that in revisional jurisdiction, irregularities and lapses held proved, could not have been condoned. It is further submitted that though an inquiry has been ordered to find out misappropriation, in present facts, such an inquiry is really not necessary. He has relied upon the provisions of clauses (10), (11) and (15) of Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Licensing Order) to substantiate his contention.