Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Revisional Order in Fair Price Shop Licence Cancellation Case — Violation of Natural Justice and Interference with Concurrent Findings. The court held that the Additional Commissioner erred in setting aside the cancellation of licence and allotment without hearing the petitioner, and that the revisional authority ought not to have interfered with concurrent findings of fact based on material on record.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 112
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Baburao Dnyandevrao Pawar, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dated 20.11.1991, which set aside the cancellation of the fair price shop licence of respondent No.5, Narayan Panditrao Bhale, and the subsequent allotment of the shop to the petitioner. The background facts reveal that respondent No.5 was originally running the fair price shop in village Lingsa, but complaints from card holders led to an enquiry by the Tahsildar, who found that respondent No.5 had not distributed commodities and failed to maintain records. The Assistant Collector (respondent No.2) initially directed respondent No.5 to deposit an amount and warned him to improve. However, respondent No.5 again indulged in similar activities, leading to a second enquiry, which again found mismanagement and false explanations. Consequently, the Assistant Collector cancelled respondent No.5's licence on 5.8.1991. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent No.3) issued a public proclamation and invited applications for allotment of the fair price shop. The petitioner applied and was interviewed by the Assistant Collector, who allotted the shop to the petitioner. Respondent No.5 then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, who set aside both the cancellation of the licence and the allotment to the petitioner, without issuing notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner contended that the Additional Commissioner's order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and that the revision was not maintainable on merits. The court analyzed the facts and found that the Additional Commissioner had not considered the merits of the case and had reversed concurrent findings of fact without justification. The court held that the order was unsustainable as it was passed without hearing the petitioner, who was a necessary party. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Additional Commissioner's order, and restored the orders of the Assistant Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - The Additional Commissioner set aside the cancellation of licence and allotment of fair price shop without hearing the petitioner, who was a necessary party. Held that the order passed in revision without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained (Paras 5-6).

B) Public Distribution System - Cancellation of Licence - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The Assistant Collector cancelled the licence of respondent No.5 after two enquiries revealing mismanagement and false explanations. The Sub-Divisional Officer allotted the shop to the petitioner after public proclamation. The Additional Commissioner reversed these concurrent findings without adequate justification. Held that the revisional authority ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact based on material on record (Paras 3-5).

C) Civil Procedure - Revision - Maintainability - The Additional Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Order, 1977. The order was passed without considering the merits of the case and without hearing the petitioner. Held that the revision was not maintainable on merits and the order is liable to be set aside (Paras 5-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Additional Commissioner erred in setting aside the cancellation of the fair price shop licence of respondent No.5 and the allotment of the shop to the petitioner, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and whether the revision was maintainable on merits.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.11.1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Case No. 91/SB/DESK-3/CSE/REV/CR-95 is quashed and set aside. The orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Jalna dated 5.8.1991 and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalna are restored.

Law Points

  • Natural justice
  • show cause notice
  • opportunity of hearing
  • revision jurisdiction
  • concurrent findings of fact
  • public distribution system
  • cancellation of licence
  • allotment of fair price shop
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (11) 12

Writ Petition No. 4088 of 1991

2010-11-24

S. S. Shinde, J.

Ms. Vaishali Deshmukh h/f Mr. V.D. Salunke for petitioner, Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6

Baburao Dnyandevrao Pawar

The State of Maharashtra, The Assistant Collector, Jalna, The Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna, The Tahsildar, Partur, Narayan Panditrao Bhale, The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner setting aside the cancellation of fair price shop licence and allotment to the petitioner.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought quashing of the Additional Commissioner's order dated 20.11.1991 and restoration of the orders of the Assistant Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer.

Filing Reason

The Additional Commissioner set aside the cancellation of respondent No.5's licence and the allotment of the fair price shop to the petitioner without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Previous Decisions

The Assistant Collector cancelled the licence of respondent No.5 on 5.8.1991 after two enquiries. The Sub-Divisional Officer allotted the shop to the petitioner after public proclamation. The Additional Commissioner reversed these orders in revision.

Issues

Whether the Additional Commissioner's order setting aside the cancellation of licence and allotment without hearing the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice. Whether the Additional Commissioner could interfere with concurrent findings of fact without adequate justification.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the Additional Commissioner passed the order without issuing notice to him, violating natural justice. The petitioner contended that the revision was not maintainable on merits as the concurrent findings of fact were based on material on record. The respondents argued that the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the order.

Ratio Decidendi

The revisional authority cannot set aside concurrent findings of fact without adequate justification and must afford an opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties. An order passed in violation of natural justice is unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The Additional Commissioner, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Procedural History

The Assistant Collector cancelled the licence of respondent No.5 on 5.8.1991. The Sub-Divisional Officer allotted the fair price shop to the petitioner after public proclamation. Respondent No.5 filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, who set aside both orders on 20.11.1991. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 20.11.1991.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Order, 1977:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Arbitral Award in Cooperative Bank Dispute Due to Violation of Natural Justice. Arbitrator Denied Petitioners Opportunity to Cross-Examine Witness and Improperly Relied on Secondary Evidence Without Application U...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Revisional Order in Fair Price Shop Licence Cancellation Case — Violation of Natural Justice and Interference with Concurrent Findings. The court held that the Additional Commissioner erred in sett...