Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the cancellation and subsequent regularization of a Fair Price Shop license under the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975. The petitioner, a Fair Price Shop owner at Village Shaniwarpeth, Taluka Kinwat, challenged the order of the Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department condoning a nine-year delay in filing a revision by Respondent No.7 and restoring his license. Respondent No.7 operated a Fair Price Shop at Village Gokunda, Taluka Kinwat. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat canceled Respondent No.7's license on 05.08.2000 due to complaints from cardholders. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad dismissed Respondent No.7's revision on 23.06.2003. The cardholders attached to Respondent No.7's shop were diverted to the petitioner's shop. Thereafter, Respondent No.7 filed a revision before the Minister under Clause 24 of the 1975 Order. The Minister by order dated 14.10.2009 allowed the revision, set aside the cancellation, imposed a fine, and directed recovery of Rs.80,675. The petitioner challenged this order in Writ Petition No.8435 of 2009. The High Court on 25.01.2010 set aside the Minister's order, held that the petitioner had locus standi, and remanded the matter to the Minister for fresh consideration of delay condonation after hearing both parties. Respondent No.7 filed Letters Patent Appeal No.38 of 2010, which was withdrawn on 11.01.2019. After remand, Respondent No.7 filed an application for condonation of delay. The Minister by impugned order dated 08.12.2022 again allowed the revision, set aside the earlier orders, imposed a fine of Rs.5000, and directed recovery of Rs.80,675. The District Supply Officer, Nanded by order dated 14.12.2022 regularized Respondent No.7's license. The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The core legal issues were whether the Minister had the power to condone a delay beyond 30 days under Clause 24 of the 1975 Order, whether the Minister was required to record satisfaction about the reasonableness of the explanation for delay, whether the delay condonation application and the main revision could be decided simultaneously, and whether the petitioner had locus standi. The petitioner contended that the revision was hopelessly barred by limitation, that Clause 24 did not empower condonation of delay beyond 30 days, and that the Minister failed to give cogent reasons. Respondent No.7 objected to the petitioner's locus standi, arguing that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person because the cardholders were attached to his shop only as a stop-gap arrangement. The High Court did not decide the issues of locus standi and the scope of the Minister's power to condone delay beyond 30 days, keeping the latter open. It held that the impugned order was unsustainable on two grounds. First, the Minister condoned a nine-year delay without recording any satisfaction that the explanation was either reasonable or satisfactory, which is an essential prerequisite for condonation of delay, as held by the Supreme Court in P. K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556. The Court quoted paragraph 3 of that decision, which stated that the court had not recorded any satisfaction about the explanation. Second, the Minister considered the application for condonation of delay and the merits of the revision simultaneously, which is impermissible. The authority ought to have first decided the delay condonation application by giving sufficient reasons, and only thereafter taken up the revision on merits. Consequently, the High Court held that the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 and the consequential order dated 14.12.2022 were liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and left open the question of the Minister's power to condone delay beyond 30 days under Clause 24 of the 1975 Order.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Condonation of Delay - Recording of Satisfaction - Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975, Clause 24 - The Minister condoned an inordinate delay of nine years in filing a revision without recording satisfaction that the explanation for the delay was either reasonable or satisfactory. The High Court held that such recording is a sine qua non for condonation of delay, relying on P. K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala. The impugned order was quashed and set aside on this ground (Paras 13-14). B) Administrative Law - Condonation of Delay and Hearing on Merits - Simultaneous Consideration - Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975, Clause 24 - The Minister considered the application for condonation of delay and the main revision on merits simultaneously, which is impermissible. The Court held that the authority must first decide the delay condonation application by giving sufficient reasons, and only thereafter take up the revision on merits; the impugned order was vitiated on this ground (Paras 15-16). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Locus Standi of Petitioner - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 227 - Respondent No.7 contended that the petitioner lacked locus standi because the cardholders were diverted to the petitioner's shop as a stop-gap arrangement. The Court noted this objection but did not decide it, as the petition was being decided on other grounds; earlier orders of the High Court had recognized petitioner's locus standi (Paras 6-7, 11-12). D) Statutory Interpretation - Limitation - Power to Condon Delay Beyond 30 Days - Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975, Clause 24 - The petitioner argued that Clause 24 does not empower the Minister to condone delay beyond 30 days. The Court stated that this issue need not be gone into at this juncture and kept it open for future consideration (Para 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Minister had jurisdiction to condone an inordinate delay of nine years under Clause 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975; whether the Minister was required to record satisfaction that the explanation for delay was reasonable or satisfactory; whether it was permissible to decide the delay condonation application and the main revision simultaneously; and whether the petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 passed by Respondent No.2 and the consequential order dated 14.12.2022 passed by Respondent No.4, thereby restoring the position prior to those orders. The issue of the Minister's power to condone delay beyond 30 days under Clause 24 of the 1975 Order was kept open for future consideration.
Law Points
- Condonation of inordinate delay requires recording of satisfaction that explanation is reasonable or satisfactory
- Delay condonation application and main revision cannot be decided simultaneously
- The authority must first decide delay application before merits
- Clause 24 of Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order
- 1975 does not empower condonation of delay beyond 30 days (issue kept open)
- Locus standi of rival Fair Price Shop owner recognized in earlier proceedings but not decided in present petition
