Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from cancellation of a ration shop licence held by respondent No.4 under the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1975. The petitioner, a consumer from the same village, challenged an order of the Minister of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection dated 13 June 2023, which in review had quashed earlier orders cancelling the licence and directed restoration. The dispute centered on whether the Minister had jurisdiction to entertain a review after the expiry of one year and whether the review satisfied the statutory grounds under Clause 24(2). Factual background: Respondent No.4 held a ration shop licence. Complaints were received that he sold ration articles at higher rates and did not correctly distribute kerosene and grains. The District Supply Officer recorded statements of ration card holders and after inquiry cancelled the licence on 10 October 2012. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply) dismissed the appeal on 28 March 2013. Respondent No.4's revision before the Minister was dismissed on 8 August 2013. He then filed Writ Petition No. 6398 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, but on instructions withdrew it on 1 March 2018 stating he wanted to avail an alternate remedy. Thereafter, he filed a review application before the Minister, who by order dated 13 June 2023 quashed the earlier orders and directed restoration of the licence. The legal issue before the High Court was whether the review application was filed within time under Clause 24(2) of the Order 1975 and whether the Minister applied the permissible grounds. Clause 24(2) empowers the Government to review orders passed in its revisional jurisdiction but only before expiry of one year from the date of any order passed in revision. The clause does not permit consideration of an application after that period. The grounds prescribed are discovery of new matter of evidence, mistake or error apparent on face of record, and any other sufficient reason. The clause restricts jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the Minister had no power to entertain review after one year, there was inordinate delay, and the writ petition was pending for four years before withdrawal; the order was mechanically passed. The petitioner contended the review was not considered under Clause 24(2) and that reasons were against law, no error apparent on face of record existed, and reformation theory had no place. Respondent No.4 argued that since 2013 no proclamation for a new ration shop had been issued, the complainant's statement was not recorded, accounts were not inspected, enquiry was ex parte, and the writ petition was pending so there was no delay; the limitation ran from the withdrawal order of 2018, and the Minister correctly considered ten years away from business sufficient with a fine of Rs.5000. The court noted that the impugned order did not reflect any of the statutory grounds. It recorded only respondent No.4's submissions that he was not allowed to participate and that account books were not inspected, but these were not reasons for review. The District Supply Officer had acted on a complaint. The court held that the review order was without reasons as required under Clause 24(2), did not identify any mistake or error apparent on the face of record, and sufficient reason did not include discretion. There was no provision to apply reformative theory. The licence was cancelled for cheating consumers by charging higher rates, which is a valid ground under the Order. The court observed that a wrong person should not be re-licensed, and law should be implemented to maintain trust and certainty. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Minister's order dated 13 June 2023, and directed the Collector, Jalna, to issue a proclamation inviting applications from competent persons for granting the licence of respondent No.4's shop as soon as possible. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Public Distribution System - Review of Ration Shop Licence Cancellation - Limitation and Jurisdiction - Maharashtra Schedule Commodities (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1975 Clause 24(2) - The Minister's review power was exercisable only within one year from the date of the order passed in revision, and the clause did not permit consideration of any application after that period - Since respondent No.4's review was filed after the writ petition was withdrawn in 2018, against a 2013 revision order, the review was time-barred and without jurisdiction - Held that the impugned review order was invalid on this ground alone (Paras 7-8). B) Administrative Law - Grounds for Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record and Sufficient Reasons - Maharashtra Schedule Commodities (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1975 Clause 24(2) - Review jurisdiction was confined to discovery of new evidence, mistake or error apparent on face of record, or any other sufficient reason, and sufficient reason did not include judicial discretion or reformation theory - The impugned order merely recorded respondent No.4's submissions that he was not allowed to participate and accounts were not inspected, but gave no finding of any mistake or error causing apparent injustice - Held that the order was devoid of merits and not in consonance with prescribed grounds (Paras 8-9). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Constitution of India Article 226 - A review order under Clause 24(2) must mention the apparent mistakes or errors in the earlier order; an unreasoned order cannot be sustained - The Minister's order failed to reflect any of the statutory grounds and was quashed as illegal and against the provision of law - Held that the writ petition was allowed, and the Collector was directed to issue proclamation for fresh grant (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review application before the Minister was filed within the one-year limitation under Clause 24(2) of the Maharashtra Schedule Commodities (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1975; Whether the impugned review order satisfied the grounds for review prescribed under Clause 24(2), including error apparent on face of record or sufficient reason; Whether reformative theory could justify restoration of a cancelled ration shop licence
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The impugned order of the Minister dated 13-06-2023 in case No. oSve&1119@iz-dz-61@uk-iq-21 was quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. Rule made absolute. The learned Collector, Jalna, directed to issue proclamation inviting applications from competent persons for granting licence of respondent No.4's shop as soon as possible.
Law Points
- Review under Clause 24(2) of Maharashtra Schedule Commodities (Regulation and Distribution) Order
- 1975 must be filed within one year from the date of order passed in revision
- Grounds for review are confined to discovery of new evidence
- error apparent on face of record
- or any other sufficient reason
- Sufficient reason does not include judicial discretion or reformation theory
- Review order must identify apparent mistake or error causing injustice
- Order without prescribed grounds is invalid
- Licence cancellation for overcharging is valid ground
