1 912-WP-8896-18.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8896 OF 2018 Shraddha Rahul Pande, Age 36 yrs. Occ. Business r/o at post Pimpri, Tq. Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon ...Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Maharashtra State Mantralaya Mumbai – 32 2. The District Collector, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. The District Supply Officer, Officer of District Collector (Supply) Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. The Dy. Commissioner (Supply) Nashik Division, Nashik. 5. Manoj Mistrilal Pande, Age Major, Occ. Nil R/o at post Pimpri (Kh), Tq. Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ...Respondents ... Mr. Vinod P. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. V. N. Patil Jadhav, AGP for Respondents/State Mr. Mukul Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Ms. Pratibha K. Chaudhari, Advocate for Respondent No.5 … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2025 PER COURT : 1. Petitioner who was running fair price shop at Pimpri, Tq. Dharangaon, challenges the order dated 09/01/2018 passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, in Revision Application No.VAINA-1417/P.K.125/N.P.23, SVH 2025:BHC-AUG:5913 2 912-WP-8896-18.odt wherein the revision preferred by respondent No.5 has been partly allowed and the order dated 05/08/2017 passed by respondent No.4 Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nashik Division, Nashik, has been quashed and set aside, so also, order dated 18/01/2017 passed by respondent No.3 District Supply Officer, Jalgaon, has been maintained. 2. It is the contention of petitioner that respondent No.5 who is cousin of her husband has filed complaint against the petitioner on various grounds due to political rivalry, because of which respondent No.3 District Supply Officer has erroneously passed order dated 18/01/2017, thereby cancelling license of petitioner. Being aggrieved by this order, petitioner approached respondent No.4 Deputy Commissioner (Supply), wherein taking into consideration the documents placed on record as well as submissions on behalf of the respective parties, respondent No.4 has partly allowed the appeal and order dated 18/01/2017 passed by respondent No.3 has been quashed and set aside. However, the 100 % amount of deposit made by petitioner has been forfeited and it was directed that petitioner should be given strict warning to abide by the rules and regulations for running fair price shop. Accordingly license of petitioner for running fair price shop has been restored. 3. The order passed by respondent No.4 was challenged by respondent No.5 before the Minister. It is the contention of SVH 3 912-WP-8896-18.odt petitioner that without taking into consideration the findings recorded by respondent No.4 while partly allowing the appeal filed by petitioner and ignoring the relevant documents placed on record, the Minister has quashed and set aside the order of restoration of license of petitioner. During the proceedings before respondent No.4, he has relied on certain documents which show that allegations against petitioner about sale of food grains at higher rate are not supported by the documentary evidence and there is no evidence in respect of said allegations. The cash memos which are seized do not disclose that food grains have been sold at a higher rate. The learned advocate for petitioner submits that reliance is placed on resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 15/08/2015 at 08:00 a.m. taking note of complaint of villagers that cardholders are not receiving supply of food grains regularly and food grains are sold by the petitioner in open market. However, on the same day, one more resolution is passed at 09:00 a.m. by the Gram Panchayat resolving that villagers are receiving food grains regularly and there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the petitioner, therefore, the earlier resolution which was inadvertently passed by the Gram Panchayat, should be deemed to be cancelled, as villagers do not have any grievance against petitioner. These aspects are not considered by the Minister. 4. Learned AGP placed reliance on the reply affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Dharangaon, to contend that there is no substance SVH 4 912-WP-8896-18.odt in the allegation made by petitioner that complaint made against her is frivolous and politically motivated. Tahsildar, Dharangaon, has personally inspected the record of fair price shop of petitioner and found serious flaws, accordingly prepared report for cancellation of license of fair price shop of petitioner, which is also supported by the resolution of Gram Sabha. On 15/08/2015, in the Gram Sabha 154 villagers made several complaints including that the villagers do not get their share of food grains in time and the stock in the shop is sold in open market. 5. Respondent No.3 District Supply Officer, Jalgaon, also found serious flaws in record during the inspection conducted on 07/09/2015. Respondent No.4 Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nashik formed a squad headed by Tahsildar, to inspect the shop of the petitioner. On the basis of inspection conducted by the squad, the Tahsildar submitted report dated 26/05/2016, whereupon petitioner was given warning and she was directed to disburse food grains of fair price shop to the beneficiaries in time and regularly, however, there was no improvement. Therefore the fair price shop license of petitioner came to be cancelled by respondent No.3. The Hon’ble Minister has taken into consideration all these aspects and has rightly confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3, which do not deserve any interference. 6. I have heard the respective parties. On going through the order dated 18/01/2017 passed by respondent No.3 District SVH 5 912-WP-8896-18.odt Supply Officer, it appears that Tahsildar had conducted inspection of the shop of petitioner on 21/11/2016 and observed following irregularities :- (1) Name of 10 beneficiaries of Shop No.52 in Antyoday and BPL scheme are shown twice (2) Food grains have been distributed to those 10 beneficiaries (3) Food grains are sold to the beneficiaries at higher rate than the rate fixed by Government. (4) Sugar has been sold at the rate of Rs.20/- per Kg. and not as per the rate fixed by Government (5) According to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 15/08/2015, beneficiaries/cardholders from the village are not getting food grains on time and food grains are being sold in open market by the shop owner. 7. In view of the irregularities observed in the report submitted by Tahsildar, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30/11/2016. Petitioner has answered the show-cause notice explaining the irregularities mentioned therein. So far as first allegation is concerned, it is stated that 10 beneficiaries whose names were repeated, are as per the list provided by the Tahsildar, Dharangaon and according to the list she has disbursed food grains. After inspection done by the Tahsildar, petitioner came to know that those beneficiaries are attached to shop No.52, owned by Mr. Nitin Rajmal Kabara. This fact was not informed to the petitioner. Due to complaint filed by respondent No.5, her licence was suspended, hence, for a period of 9 to 10 months she was not conducting the SVH 6 912-WP-8896-18.odt business. She did not commit this mistake with any intention and she has undertaken that she will not sell food grains to those 10 beneficiaries henceforth. Petitioner has further stated that she has sold food grains and sugar according to the rate fixed by the Government. It is also stated in her reply that, subsequent resolution is passed by the Gram Sabha on 15/08/2015 at 09:00 a.m., wherein it is resolved that no illegalities are committed by her. 8. It appears that, without taking into consideration the explanation given by petitioner the order of cancellation of license of the petitioner came to be passed by respondent No.3. Respondent No.4 Deputy Commissioner (Supply), while partly allowing the revision application filed by petitioner has taken into consideration the record and explanation given by petitioner in response to the allegations made against her. It is observed that as far as repetition of 10 names in the list of beneficiaries under Antyoday and BPL schemes is concerned, petitioner was not aware about the fact that those names are also reflected in the list of Shop No.52, which is provided by the Tahsildar. Since the list of beneficiaries under Antyoday and BPL schemes is provided by the Tahsildar, the shop owner cannot be held responsible for it. 9. As far as selling of food grains at higher rate is concerned, there is no evidence to prove the said allegation. There is no record or documentary evidence to support the allegations. The cash memo seized during the inspection do not disclose the SVH 7 912-WP-8896-18.odt rate at which food grains are sold. During the inquiry statement of three persons are recorded in respect of inspection of the fair price shop which are produced on record, all statements are identical with no difference at all. Hence, prima facie allegation of selling food grains and sugar at higher price do not appear to be correct. 10. The respondent No.4 has also taken into consideration the subsequent resolution passed by the Gram Sabha, wherein it was resolved that earlier resolution is not correct, the villagers are receiving their share of food grains on time, therefore, earlier resolution has been cancelled. Respondent No.4, therefore, partly allowed the appeal and restored the license of the petitioner. 11. Though respondent No.4 has held that prima facie the record does not disclose any irregularities and illegalities are committed by petitioner, however, he has forfeited the deposit paid by the petitioner towards the license of fair price shop, the petitioner was also warned to abide by the rules and regulations henceforth while conducting the business. 12. The Minister has not taken into consideration the subsequent resolution passed by the Gram Sabha, he has been swayed by the earlier resolution passed by the Gram Sabha, and has quashed and set aside the order passed by respondent No.4. Respondent No.5 is in relation of petitioner. He has also filed reply affidavit stating that the fair price shop belonging to petitioner is closed since long and villagers are facing hardships since the SVH 8 912-WP-8896-18.odt cardholders attached to the shop of petitioner are attached to other shop. Therefore, respondent No.5 has not pressed his complaint and has given no objection for quashing of order passed by the Minister. 13. The irregularities observed by the Tahsildar in inspection are explained by petitioner in her reply to the show-cause notice and the same has been rightly considered by respondent No.4. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by respondent No.4 Deputy Commissioner (Supply). 14. On the last occasion when the matter was heard, this Court directed learned AGP to take instructions about the status of the cardholders as well as whether the shop of petitioner is allotted to any other person. Learned AGP has placed on record communication issued by respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that the cardholders attached to the shop of petitioner have been attached to the other shop in the village, and the notification for allotment of fair price shop has not been issued. In view of the communication from respondent No.3, I do not find any impediment in restoring the license of petitioner. 15. It appears that respondent No.4 Deputy Commissioner (Supply) has taken into consideration the record which was seized during the inspection and the statements recorded, so also the order passed by respondent No.3 District Supply Officer along with explanation which was submitted by the petitioner and has passed a well reasoned order. Each and every allegation against petitioner SVH 9 912-WP-8896-18.odt has been appreciated by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) and has recorded findings which are supported by the documents. It appears that the Minister has placed heavy reliance on the resolution passed by Gram Sabha at the earlier point of time and has interfered with the order passed by Deputy Commissioner (Supply), thereby allowing revision filed by respondent No.5. The Minister does not seem to have taken into account the subsequent resolution passed by the Gram Sabha wherein earlier resolution has been cancelled. Similarly, the Minister has also not taken into consideration that petitioner has supplied food grains to 10 persons according to the list provided by the Tahsildar, therefore, she was not at fault. So far as other allegations are concerned, since there is no supporting evidence, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) should not have been interfered by the Minister. Therefore, in my opinion order passed by the Minister deserves to be quashed and set aside. 16. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 09/01/2018 passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, in Revision Application No.VAINA- 1417/P.K.125/N.P.23, is hereby quashed and set aside, as a consequence the order 05/08/2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nashik Division, Nashik stands confirmed. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) SVH