{1} WP 8023 OF 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8023 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.872 OF 2011 . Parshuram Dnyandeo Rindhe Age: 29 Years, Occu.: Agri. & Social Work, R/o. Jeur (Haibati), Tq.Newasa, District : Ahmednagar. ….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Chief Secretary, Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Minister, Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 3. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nashik Division, Nashik. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur Division, Shrirampur, District – Ahmednagar. 5. The Tahsildar, Newasa, Tq.Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 6. Deelip S/o Bhaurao Ugale Age: 40 years, Occu.: Business, R/o. Jeur (Haibati), Tq.Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. …..Respondents ….. Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Narayan B. Narwade AGP for Respondent nos.1 to 5 : Mr.V.M.Jaware Advocate for Respondent no.6 : Mr.Shrikant G. Kawade, Mr. Chandrakant V. Thombre ….. 2026:BHC-AUG:23617 {2} WP 8023 OF 2010 CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 12 JUNE, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 17 JUNE, 2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Mr.Thombre, learned counsel for respondent no.6 submits that his appearance be discharged. In view of this, appearance of Mr.Thombre, learned counsel is discharged. 2. Petitioner herein challenges the order passed by respondent no.2/the Hon’ble Minister, Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department Mantralaya dated 11-08-2010 in Review Application No.oSvuk&1410@288@iz-dz-52@uk-iq-23, altering the earlier order dated 01-12-2008. 3. Mr.Narwade, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, present respondent no.6 was allotted licence/permit to sell Kerosene by the Government of Maharashtra. He is respondent no.3 in several proceedings which commenced from application to Tahsildar till Deputy Commissioner (Supply) of which review was considered by the Hon’ble Minister. He submitted that, on 19-05-2006 on representation made by Gram Panchayat as well as {3} WP 8023 OF 2010 present petitioner, Tahsildar, Newasa noticed several irregularities, therefore, show cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) on 08-06-2006 seeking explanation as to why action should not be taken. That, subsequently, finding there to be no satisfactory explanation, the SDO, by order dated 18-09-2006, cancelled the licence/permit issued in favour of present respondent no.6. That, said order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) and stay was sought to the order of the SDO, but by order dated 21-08-2007, stay was refused. It is pointed out that against it, he approached the Hon’ble Minister, Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. In said proceedings, present petitioner was respondent no.3. It is further pointed out that, by order dated 01-12-2008, revision filed by present respondent no.6 was dismissed. However, surprisingly, he again preferred review application before the Hon’ble Minister and to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, without assigning sound reasons, review application has been allowed. 4. Thus, according to Mr. Narwade, learned counsel for the petitioner, subsequent order dated 11-08-2010 passed in Review Application is bad in law. That, review was not maintainable. That, {4} WP 8023 OF 2010 scope of review has been expanded by the Hon’ble Minister which could not be done in review. That, there was no reason to review the order, as earlier, the Hon’ble Minister had rejected revision in which there was no error or irregularity on face of record so as to entertain and allow review and for above reasons, he prays to allow writ petition by setting aside order dated 11-08-2010 passed in review application. 5. Defending the above order passed in review application, learned counsel for respondent no.6 pointed out that, only because of some marriage in the house of respondent no.6, who was beneficiary of licence/permit to conduct business of sale of Kerosene, for 2-3 days there was no supply. That, marriage card is also placed on record. That, there were no illegalities, irregularities or non- compliance of procedures in conducting the business. That, action of present petitioner, who was respondent no.3 throughout, is politically motivated. That, in revision, crucial aspects put forth were not considered and therefore, review was required to be followed, which was very much maintainable. He took this Court through the observations of the Hon’ble Minister while entertaining review application and further pointed out that penal action has been taken {5} WP 8023 OF 2010 by imposing penalty. That, penalty is already paid and also accepted by the Government. Therefore, nothing remains for consideration and for above reasons, he prays to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits. 6. After considering the above submissions and on going through the record, it appears that there is no dispute that present respondent no.6 was beneficiary of licence/permit issued by Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department of the Government of Maharashtra to sell Kerosene. It appears that, Tahsildar, Jeur (Haibati), Tq.Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar, received complaint dated 19-05-2006 from Gram Panchayat pointing out irregularities in sale of Kerosene and conducting business of fair price shop and therefore, including present petitioner, Gram Panchayat sought action of transfer of said licence/permit to other person. Copy of the same was also forwarded to District Supply Officer, Shrirampur. Thereafter, SDO seems to have issued show cause notice to present respondent no.6 on 08-06-2006 pointing out the irregularities during inspection and further, calling upon explanation as to why permit should not be cancelled. In consequence to the same, the SDO, by order dated 18-09-2006, seems to have been cancenlled permit/licence issued in {6} WP 8023 OF 2010 favour of present respondent no.6. Against the same, said respondent no.6, moved application before Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nashik and also prayed stay, but by order dated 21-08-2007, the same was rejected. Dissatisfied by the same, he moved the Hon’ble Minister, Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department vide revision application no. oSvfo&1407@1656@iz-dz-405@uk-iq-23. But by order dated 01-12-2008 revision came to be dismissed maintaining the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) as well as SDO, Shrirampur. Aggrieved by the same, Review Application bearing No. oSvuk&1410@288@iz-dz-52@uk- iq-23 came to be filed and by order dated 11-08-2010, Review Application came to be allowed holding that review applicant/present respondent no.6 has admitted his mistake and fault. That, on account of marriage of his sister, during relevant period, there was no sale of Kerosene. However, charges raised at Sr.Nos.2 and 3 are not aggreable to him. Therefore, the Hon’ble Minister thought it fit to impose costs of Rs.5,000/- and to restore the licence/permit. 7. There is no dispute that review is maintainable. Indeed earlier, the Hon’ble Minister has rejected the revision application, but after {7} WP 8023 OF 2010 entertaining review, subsequent Hon’ble Minister seems to have considered the reason for disruption of regular supply of Kerosene on account of marriage of sister of respondent no.6. Marriage card is placed on record. The Hon’ble Minister, while entertaining review, thought it fit to impose penalty for the lapses on the part of respondent no.6 in conducting supply of essentials. Therefore, penal action has already been taken. Statement is made across the bar by learned counsel for respondent no.6 that by way of Challan, penalty is paid and it is duly accepted by the Government. Therefore, by imposing penalty, review seems to have been allowed and as such there cannot be said to be any illegality as action is also equally taken by imposing penalty before regularizing and restoring licence/permit. For above reasons, the impugned order, which is of 11-08-2010 i.e. 15 years back, cannot be faulted at. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the Government has already stopped issuing licence/permit for sale of Kerosene and for said reason also, nothing survives. Hence, there being no illegality, perversity in the impugned order, this Court does not find there to be a good reason to interfere. Accordingly, following order is passed : {8} WP 8023 OF 2010 ORDER (I) Writ Petition stands dismissed. (II) Civil Application is also disposed of. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT