SANDEEP RAMKIESHAN PANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri. A. B. Kale, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri. B. J. Sonwane, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri. V. P. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

(2.) This petition relates to the dispute regarding legality and propriety of distribution of public largessee, namely, licence to run a fair price shop. Pursuant to an advertisement for granting licence to run a fair price shop at village Pimpri (Khurd) , five applications were received. Out of those five applicants, name of respondent No. 5 Smt. Shradha Rahul Pande was at serial No. 1 and in her favour Gramsabha passed a resolution, recommending her case for grant of the licence, in accordance with the government Policy. The name of present petitioner was at serial No. 5. All the eligible four applicants were at serial No. 2 in the priority list. Out of the four, the respondent No. 5-Shradha was having capital to the extent of rs. 50,000/- whereas the petitioner was having capital to the extent of Rs. 53,000/ -. Both of them are under-graduates. The District Supply officer held that comparatively the case of petitioner stands on better footing because the capital investment with him was more. The district Supply Officer kept aside the recommendation of the Gramsabha and granted licence in favour of the petitioner. The decision was challenged before the Commissioner by way of appeal. The appeal preferred by the respondent No. 5 came to be dismissed. The respondent No. 5 then preferred a revision petition urging the Hon'ble Minister, Food, supply and Consumer Protection, to invoke powers under clause 24 of the Maharashtra scheduled Commodities (Regulation of distribution) Order, 1975. The Hon'ble minister noticed certain illegalities committed by both the authorities and as such reversed the findings and held that the respondent No. 5-Shradha was eligible for grant of the licence to run fair price shop. Revision petition was accordingly allowed and direction was issued to grant licence in her favour. This order is subject matter of the challenge in the writ petition.

(3.) Shri. A. B. Kale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Minister could not have entertained the second revision petition. He invited my attention to the Judgment of a Single Bench of this court, in "bhupendra Villa Premises Co-operative society Ltd. and another Vs. Chandrakant g. Shah and others" (2001 (2) Mh. L. J. 834) in which Single Bench of this court held that second revision under Section 154 (2) of the maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was nct tenable. He also invited my attention to the case of "aundal Ammal Vs. Sadasivan Pillai" (AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 203). That was a case under the provisions of the Rent act, there is specific provision which debars the second revision. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents would rely on "parmeshwar Sihoratan Bohara and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another" (1997 (2) Mh. L. J. 252 : [1997 (2) ALL MR 35]). A Division Bench of this court has held that in view of clause 24 of the maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975, the suo motu powers available to the State government are wider than one conferred on commissioner in the first part of the Clause 24 and, therefore, exercise of such powers by the state Government is not illegal. One can not be oblivious of the fact that this power available to the State Government is specifically enumerated in the relevant provisions of the maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975. The Government largessee and the licensing are the issues involved herein. There is nothing wrong if more powers are made available to the State Government in such matters. I am bound by the Judgment of the Division Bench of this court, in this context, and as such I do not find any force in the contentions of learned counsel Shri. A. B. Kale, regarding absence of jurisdiction available to the Hon'ble Minister.