2-WP-2225-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2225 OF 2018 Smt. Chandana Kisan Valvi VERSUS The Hon’ble Minister Food, Civil Supply and Others ….. Mr. D. S. Bagul, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for the Respondents – State Mr. Samir S. Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent No.5 ….. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 08.04.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Vaiana/1416/Case No.184/NaPu23, whereby the Minister partly allowed the review filed by respondent No.5 and thereby granted a licence permanently in favour of respondent no.5. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the year 2006, the State allotted a fair price shop in favour of the petitioner. On 24.03.2007, a crime was registered against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, pursuant to which the District Supply Officer (DSO) cancelled the petitioner’s licence of fair price shop. Thereafter, upon a full-fledged trial, the petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navapur. Following her acquittal, the petitioner applied to the Sub- 1 2026:BHC-AUG:18685 2-WP-2225-2018.odt Divisional Officer, Nandurbar, seeking restoration of her licence, which had been cancelled in the year 2007. However, by order dated 11.11.2010, the DSO rejected the said application. 4. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision application, which also came to be dismissed on 07.10.2011 by respondent No.3 – Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nashik Division, Nashik. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Minister by filing a revision under Clause 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1975 (for short ‘the Order, 1975’). By order dated 28.09.2016, the learned Minister allowed the revision partly and directed issuance of the licence in favour of the petitioner. During the interregnum, on 23.07.2015, the DSO issued a proclamation inviting applications for temporary allotment of the said fair price shop. Pursuant thereto, three women self-help groups (Bachat Gats) submitted applications, and accordingly respondent no.4 granted a temporary licence in favour of respondent No.5. 5. The learned counsel submits that, in fact, since 10.11.2016, the petitioner has been running the fair price shop. Thereafter, it transpired that respondent No.5 filed a review before the Hon’ble Minister. The petitioner appeared in the said proceedings and pointed out that she is the original resident of village Talawipada. He further submits that the allotment of the said fair price shop in favour of respondent No.5 was purely temporary and only by way of a stop-gap arrangement. However, the Hon’ble Minister allowed the review application filed by respondent No.5 and granted a permanent licence in her favour. Therefore, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Minister 2 2-WP-2225-2018.odt committed an error in allowing the review application filed by respondent No.5. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 and the learned AGP for the State support the order passed by the learned Minister. They submit that the earlier order passed by the learned Minister allowing the revision filed by the petitioner was based on a specific ground that the petitioner was not residing in village Talawipada. It is submitted that the learned Minister, in exercise of powers under Clause 24 of the Order, 1975, was empowered to review his own order within a period of one year. Since the review application was filed within the prescribed period, the learned Minister has rightly exercised the said power and passed the impugned order. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Minister, it is evident that the review application was filed within a period of one year. Under Clause 24 of the Order, 1975, the learned Minister is empowered to entertain a review application filed within the prescribed period. However, as regards the merits of the order passed in review, it is noted that when the petitioner’s revision was initially allowed, during the interregnum, the District Supply Officer (DSO) had issued a proclamation and granted a temporary licence in favour of respondent No.5. The said proclamation clearly stipulated that the allotment was purely temporary in nature. Accordingly, respondent No.5 was granted the fair price shop licence only as a stop-gap arrangement, with a view to ensure that the card-holders do not suffer. 3 2-WP-2225-2018.odt 8. Once such licence was issued purely on a temporary basis, the learned Minister ought not to have allowed the review application so as to grant a permanent licence in favour of respondent No.5. Moreover, while entertaining the review application, the learned Minister has not recorded any reasons as to what was the apparent error in the earlier order warranting review. In the absence of any finding regarding an error apparent on the face of the record, the exercise of review jurisdiction is unsustainable. 9. Therefore, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned Minister is contrary to the terms of the proclamation and the nature of the licence granted to respondent No.5, and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Vaiana/1416/Case No.184/NaPu23 is quashed and set aside. 11. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer/April-2026 4