PARMESHWAR SIHORATAN BOHARA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is against Annexure-I order of the State government allowing the revision by the second respondent. The matter arose under clause 24 of the maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of distribution) Order, 1975 (for short the regulation ). The revision was entertained by the 1st Respondent against the order of the commissioner, Annexure-H. By this order the commissioner confirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer allotting authorisation to run the Fair Price Shop in favour of Petitioners 1 and 2.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2, a Co-operative Society was conducting four separate Fair Price Shops in wards Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in village Hivarkhed. Respondent No. 2 later amalgamated the four Fair price Shops into two. Thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer of Akola decided to issue proclamation inviting applications for allotment of Fair Price Shops for Wards Nos. 2 and 4. In response to the said proclamation, the writ petitioners and respondent No. 2 along with others submitted applications. The Sub-Divisional Officer allotted the Fair Price Shop in Ward No. 2 to petitioner No. 1 and the Fair Price Shop in Ward no. 4 to petitioner No. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 2 preferred revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, as indicated, dismissed the revision by Annexure-H order. Respondent No. 2 thereafter filed a further revision under clause 24 of the Regulation. By annexure-I order the 1st respondent reversed the orders of the Commissioner as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer and allotted the authorisation for the said Fair Price Shops also to the 2nd respondent.

(3.) MR. R. K. DESHPANDE, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that under law a second revision is not maintainable, and therefore, the order at Annexure-I is infirm as the same has been rendered without jurisdiction. The learned counsel maintained that the instant application cannot fall under the first proviso to clause 24 of the regulation and, therefore, the order cannot be said as one under the proviso to clause 24. It is also maintained by the learned counsel that no circumstances existed for the exercise of the suo motu jurisdiction under the proviso to clause 24. Alternatively, it was maintained by the learned counsel that on merit also the second respondent should not have been favoured for conferring of authorisation of Fair Price Shop in question, as according to the learned counsel, they themselves have admitted their incompetency to run and conduct the Fair Price Shop in Wards Nos. 2 and 4.