NANDKISHOR ONKAR MAWASKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

(2.) By the present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dtd. 19/07/2021, passed by the Hon 'ble Minister, Department of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra in Case No.oSvv 1421/iz.???.59 ??.??.23.

(3.) Respondent No.5 is authorized to run fair price shop at village Tembli Tah. Dharni, District Amravati. The petitioners/complainants are the cardholders attached to the fair price shop of respondent No.5. The petitioners/complainants had lodged complaint with respect to functioning of the fair price shop of the respondent No.5. On the complaint made by the petitioners, the District Supply Officer constituted Enquiry Committee for holding enquiry into the allegations levelled by the petitioners/complainants. The Enquiry Committee submitted report dtd. 14/12/2020 to the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 called explanation of respondent No.5, in view of adverse report furnished by the Enquiry Committee. Respondent No.5 submitted his explanation disputing the findings by the Enquiry Committee. After hearing the respondent No.5, the respondent No.3/District Supply Officer (DSO) passed order dtd. 20/01/2021 holding that respondent No.5 was guilty of breach of Clause 18 (2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 (for short hereinafter referred to as "Distribution Order, 1975 ") and was therefore liable for action, as contemplated under Clause 3 (4) of the said Order. Respondent No.3 has recorded that the respondent No.5 was guilty of misappropriation of wheat to the extent of 22.6 quintals and rice to the extent of 11.36 quintals. The DSO also recorded finding that although 2.49 quintals of pulses were allotted to the fair price shop of the respondent No.5, sale of 7.54 quitnals of pluses was found to be done. Apart from this, some other irregularities are also recorded with respect to display of signboards in the shop. Based on the aforesaid, the respondent No.3 ordered forfeiture 100% security deposit, cancellation of authorization of fair price shop and recovery of cost of wheat, rice and pulses, as per prevailing market value.