Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Subhash Rajanna Narendrulwar, was granted a semi-wholesale kerosene licence on 27/07/1992, renewed up to 31/12/2003. He applied for renewal on 29/12/2003, before expiry. However, due to a criminal prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act (Summary Criminal Case No.1605/2003), he was acquitted on 13/02/2007. Despite the acquittal, the District Supply Officer, Chandrapur, on 30/03/2009, directed the Tahsildar to stop kerosene supply until renewal. The petitioner appealed to the Hon'ble Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, who allowed the revision on 25/07/2010, setting aside the order of 30/03/2009, but imposed a fine and forfeited the security deposit. The petitioner challenged this part of the order. The High Court observed that the renewal was governed by Government Resolution dated 29th September 2004, and since the petitioner had applied before expiry and was not at fault, the fine and forfeiture were unjustified. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the fine and forfeiture, and directed the respondents to renew the licence and restore the security deposit.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Ministerial Order - Fine and Forfeiture - The petitioner challenged the order of the Hon'ble Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, which while allowing his revision application for renewal of kerosene licence, imposed a fine and forfeited the security deposit. The High Court held that since the petitioner had applied for renewal before the expiry of the licence and was not at fault for the delay, the imposition of fine and forfeiture was unjustified. The order was set aside to that extent. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Hon'ble Minister was justified in imposing fine and forfeiting the security deposit while allowing the revision application for renewal of the kerosene licence.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 25/07/2010 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra, is set aside to the extent of the directions imposing fine and forfeiting the security deposit contained in clause No.3 of the operative part. The respondents are directed to renew the petitioner's licence and restore the security deposit.
Law Points
- Renewal of licence governed by Government Resolution dated 29th September 2004
- Petitioner not at fault for non-renewal as application filed before expiry
- Minister's order set aside to extent of fine and forfeiture of security deposit
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (06) 166
Writ Petition No.171/2011
Dr. Shri Anjan De for petitioner, Ms. T. Khan for respondent Nos.1 to 3
Subhash S/o Rajanna Narendrulwar
State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary Food and Civil Supplies, District Supply Officer, Chandrapur, Tahsildar, Jivti, Distt. Chandrapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Hon'ble Minister imposing fine and forfeiting security deposit while allowing revision for renewal of kerosene licence.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of clause No.3 of the Minister's order imposing fine and forfeiting security deposit.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the directions imposing fine and forfeiting the security deposit contained in the order of the Hon'ble Minister dated 25/07/2010.
Previous Decisions
The District Supply Officer, Chandrapur, on 30/03/2009, directed stoppage of kerosene supply to the petitioner until licence renewal. The petitioner's appeal to the Hon'ble Minister was allowed on 25/07/2010, setting aside the said order, but imposing fine and forfeiting security deposit.
Issues
Whether the Hon'ble Minister was justified in imposing fine and forfeiting the security deposit while allowing the revision application for renewal of the kerosene licence.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he had applied for renewal on 29/12/2003 before the expiry of the licence and was not at fault for the non-renewal.
Petitioner contended that the fine and forfeiture were unjustified as the delay in renewal was not attributable to him.
Ratio Decidendi
Since the petitioner had applied for renewal of the licence before its expiry and was not at fault for the non-renewal, the imposition of fine and forfeiture of security deposit by the Minister was unjustified and set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has a grievance in respect of the directions imposing fine and forfeiting the security deposit, which are contained in clause No.3 of the said operative part.
It was the case of the petitioner that for the nonrenewal of licence, he could not be faulted with, as he had already filed the application for renewal on 29/12/2003.
In so far as the aspect of renewal of licence, after the period is over, is concerned, the same is governed by the Government Resolution dated 29th September, 2004.
Procedural History
The petitioner was granted a kerosene licence on 27/07/1992, renewed up to 31/12/2003. He applied for renewal on 29/12/2003. He was prosecuted under the Essential Commodities Act in Summary Criminal Case No.1605/2003 and acquitted on 13/02/2007. On 30/03/2009, the District Supply Officer directed stoppage of supply. The petitioner filed a revision before the Hon'ble Minister, who on 25/07/2010 allowed the revision but imposed fine and forfeited security deposit. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 17/01/2011.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Essential Commodities Act:
