Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Suryakant Govindrao Shinde, was one of the successful applicants for a fair price shop in an advertisement issued by the Controller of Rationing in 1996. He and Respondent No.4 (Shri Vechu Shripatsing Chavan) were allotted shops after their applications were found compliant. Respondents 5 and 6, aggrieved by their non-selection, filed revisions before the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies. The Minister, while upholding the original allotments, additionally directed that one shop each be granted to Respondents 5 and 6, citing the industrial nature of the area and potential population growth. Respondent No.4 later surrendered his shop to retain a kerosene licence. As of February 1999, the unit distribution was: petitioner 4959, Respondent No.5 1573, and Respondent No.6 1580, later revised to 5551, 3853 and 6009 respectively. The petitioner challenged the Minister's order in the Bombay High Court, contending that the grant of two additional shops was without jurisdiction because the original advertisement was for two shops only and the unit norms did not support three shops. The Court examined the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing Order, 1966, particularly clause 30 which confers revisional powers. It noted that a Government letter dated 7 May 1999 clarified that only one ration shop should be allotted under one item number, and any excess units required a fresh advertisement. A subsequent GR of 9 June 2000 prescribed minimum 3000 and maximum 8000 units per shop in the Mumbai-Thane rationing area and mandated that new shops could only be sanctioned after fresh notification. The Court considered two conflicting Division Bench decisions: an earlier one in Bali Co-operative Consumer Society Ltd. (1998) which held that revisional powers could not be used to allot a second shop not advertised, and a later one in Vajaram J. Choudhary (2001) which held clause 30 wide enough to sanction additional shops. The Court found that the Vajaram judgment had not considered the 1999 letter and 2000 GR which fundamentally altered the legal position. It ruled that after these resolutions, the revisional authority could not grant more shops than advertised. The judgment in Vajaram was declared no longer good law, and no reference to a full bench was necessary. The writ petition was allowed, and the Minister's order granting additional shops to Respondents 5 and 6 was quashed as without jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Rationing Law - Revisional Powers - Clause 30, Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing Order, 1966 - Scope of revisional powers - The revisional authority cannot grant more fair price shops than the number originally advertised and allotted by the primary authority; if the original authority could only allot one shop under the advertisement, the revisional authority cannot exceed that limit - The Controller of Rationing had allotted one shop each to the petitioner and Respondent No.4; on revision, the Minister granted additional shops to Respondents 5 and 6. The Court held that the revisional authority's action was without jurisdiction as the advertisement was for only two shops. (Paras 4-7) B) Rationing Law - Allotment Norms - Government Resolution dated 7.5.1999 and 9.6.2000 - Minimum and maximum unit requirements - Only one shop can be allotted per item number; any additional shops require a fresh advertisement and must adhere to the minimum of 3000 units and maximum of 8000 units - The subsequent government resolutions made it clear that new shops cannot be sanctioned without a fresh advertisement and proper unit allocation. The earlier Division Bench judgment in Vajaram J. Choudhary, which had interpreted clause 30 to allow additional shops, was rendered without considering these resolutions and is no longer good law. (Paras 4-5, 7) C) Precedent - Stare Decisis - Conflict between Division Bench decisions - When a later judgment is rendered without considering subsequent executive instructions that fundamentally alter the legal position, it need not be followed; a reference to a larger bench is unnecessary because the law has been clarified by the resolutions - The Court declined to refer the matter to a full bench, holding that the letter of 7.5.1999 and the GR of 9.6.2000 effectively overrule the interpretation in Vajaram, and thus the conflict was resolved. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revisional Authority under clause 30 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing Order, 1966 could exercise revisional powers to grant additional fair price shops beyond those advertised and allotted by the Rationing Officer, especially in light of the Government Resolutions dated 7.5.1999 and 9.6.2000, and in view of conflicting decisions of the Bombay High Court.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The Court holds that the revisionary authority under clause 30 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing Order, 1966 cannot grant additional fair price shops beyond those advertised. The Government Resolution of 9.6.2000 and the letter of 7.5.1999 make it clear that only one shop can be allotted per item number and any new shop requires a fresh advertisement. The judgment in Vajaram J. Choudhary v. State of Maharashtra is no longer good law in light of these subsequent resolutions. The impugned order of the Minister granting additional shops to Respondents 5 and 6 is quashed as without jurisdiction.
Law Points
- revisional powers under clause 30 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing Order
- 1966 are limited to the number of shops originally advertised
- only one ration shop can be allotted under one item number
- any additional shops require a fresh advertisement
- minimum 3000 units and maximum 8000 units must be adhered to
- government resolutions of 7.5.1999 and 9.6.2000 override earlier judicial interpretations
