1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4114 OF 2010
Dhyaneshwar Mahadeo Ambure,
aged about 55 years, occupation
Business, r/o Wadgaon Range,
Tq. Karanja, District - Washim. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary of Food,
Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. District Supply Officer, Washim,
Tq. and District - Washim.
3. Anil Yashwant Padhen,
age - Major, Occupation - Not
Known, r/o Wadgaon Range
Post - Manbha Tq. Karanja,
District - Washim. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.M. Joshi, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
AUGUST 27, 2010.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:20:22 :::
2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri Joshi, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 finally by
consent, by making Rule returnable forthwith.
2. The contention is, the Deputy Commissioner of
Supplies, on 18.06.2007, allowed revision and set aside the
orders of District Supply Officer (DSO) dated 08.05.2007 and
directed enquiry on six points. Ignoring that, a show cause
notice dated 29.08.2008 was served upon the petitioner which
was replied by him. On 14.01.2009, the Tahsildar recommended
a minor punishment. The DSO overlooked all this and on
15.06.2009 canceled the authorization of fair price shop
forfeiting entire security deposit. The petitioner raised his
grievance before the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies on
06.07.2009 and that authority directed fine of Rs.1,000/- to be
inflicted upon the petitioner and restored his authorization.
Respondent No. 3 – complainant then approached the Hon’ble
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:20:22 :::
3
Minister and the Hon’ble Minister has restored the earlier order
of cancellation of authorization.
3. Shri Patil, learned counsel has invited attention to
Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991 to urge that without
following the prescribed procedure, punishment has been
inflicted for defaults of serious nature and the Hon’ble Minister
has overlooked the three categories of defaults as noted therein.
The learned counsel further states that the material on record
showing that nobody had complained against the establishment
of the petitioner has not been evaluated. The fact that in past 12
years, there were no such incident is also overlooked.
4. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have
perused the relevant orders. The order dated 18.06.2007 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) shows that the
authority found that there were two enquiries and two different
reports. Because of this finding, he felt that a third enquiry was
necessary. The perusal of show cause notice dated 29.08.2008
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:20:22 :::
4
shows that it was based on report of Tahasildar dated 2/8/2008
in pursuance of the order dated 18.06.2007 itself. It gave details
of malpractices & 15 instances. It is, therefore, obvious that the
authorization in favour of the petitioner was already canceled
earlier and it was restored on 06.07.2009. The said investigation
and old matter continued further and on 29.08.2008 show cause
notice is issued in furtherance thereof. The report of Tahsildar
on which the petitioner has placed reliance also does not
exonerate the petitioner. It holds that for the food grains lifted
by him, the petitioner was not in a position to give satisfactory
explanation and there were irregularities in distribution. The
recommendations of the Tahsildar to inflict minor punishment is,
therefore, not very relevant. It can not affect the jurisdiction
conferred by law on statutory authorities. The malpractices
noticed can not be viewed as minor in any way. The DSO,
therefore, has correctly observed that there were serious
irregularities and hence has ordered cancellation of
authorization and forfeiture of security deposit.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:20:22 :::
5
5. Deputy Commissioner on 06.07.2009 overlooked the
fact that the shop was earlier already canceled and the said case
itself was going on further. Deputy Commissioner, therefore,
erroneously relied upon Government Resolution dated
12.11.1991 and held that the petitioner was not given proper
opportunity. Then, instead of directing department to give him
proper opportunity, only on that ground, the order has been set
aside by him and fine of Rs.1,000/- came to be inflicted. The
Deputy Commissioner has not recorded a finding that the
conclusions drawn by DSO in his order dated 15.06.2009 are in
any way erroneous or then charges proved against the petitioner
were not of grave or serious nature. The Hon’ble Minister has
noticed these aspects and therefore has interfered in the matter
in revision and restored the penalty of forfeiture of the
cancellation of authorization. There is no variation of
Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991.
6. Earlier the Deputy Commissioner noticed two
different reports and hence called for the third report. On this
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:20:22 :::
6
occasion said report dated 02.08.2008 is not even perused and
issuance of show cause notice dated 29.08.2008 by DSO or reply
dated 08.09.2008 by petitioner to it is conveniently overlooked
to grant relief to petitioner. The fact that old case itself was
going on is also forgotten and GR dated 12.11.1991 is relied
upon to justify favour shown to petitioner. Even while so doing
the finding in impugned order dated 15.06.2009 recorded by
DSO on misconducts are not demonstrated to be either
erroneous and categorization of the same as serious misconducts
by State Government it said Government Resolution itself has
been ignored. This attitude and approach of Deputy
Commissioner as appellate authority functioning under an
important welfare enactment is against the public interest and
defeats the very purpose of public distribution system. This
authority has itself violated the procedure and precautions to be
adopted in such matters prescribed therein by Government to
improve its penal actions and avoid adverse court orders on
technical grounds. The order impugned herein & passed by the
Hon. Minister in fact advances the spirit behind said Government
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:20:22 :::
7
Resolution and cause of public distribution system. Respondent
No. 1 State Government needs to take stern steps to avoid such
undue liberal approach on part of its officers.
7. In writ jurisdiction, therefore, I am not inclined to
interfere in the matter. In any case, violation of Government
Resolution dated 12.11.1991 cannot be a ground to invoke writ
jurisdiction in present circumstances. I do not find any merit in
writ petitioner and hence, the same is dismissed. Rule
discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
*******
*GS.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:20:22 :::