MEENA DEVIDAS LAHIRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

(2.) The petition is filed to challenge the order made by the Honourable Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Maharashtra by which the Honourable Minister set aside the order of Commissioner Supply, Nashik Division, Nashik, which was against Respondent No.5, Rajendra Bagul. The Commissioner had set aside the order of District Supply Officer by which licence was granted to Respondent No.5 in respect of fair price shop.

(3.) The submissions made and record show that in the year 1997, one incident of irregularity was noticed as against Respondent No.5 and other persons holding similar licence for other shops. One transport vehicle was intercepted in which huge quantity of food grains were found and they were being taken for sale in black market. During inquiry, it revealed that quantity like two quintal wheat, around one quintal sugar, some Palm Tel from the shop of Respondent No.5 was sold in black market by making false record of distribution in fair price shop. Report was given in respect of that incident to police and Crime at C.R. No.7 of 1997 was registered against Respondent No.5 and two others in Kopargaon Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. During pendency of that case, show cause notice was issued against Respondent No.5 in respect of suspension of his licence. After giving opportunity to Respondent No.5 and on the basis of record of inquiry, the order of cancellation of his licence came to be passed on 17th April, 1997. This order of District Supply Officer was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner Nashik Division in revision, but the revision came to be dismissed. The circumstance that there was no explanation with Respondent No.5 with regard to aforesaid irregularity was considered at that time. The learned counsel for Respondent No.5 submitted that Respondent No.5 had filed proceeding before the State Government, but he had not prosecuted the said matter. In any case, it can be said that the order of cancellation of licence passed by the competent authority had become final.