Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Balbhim Sukhdeo Limbkar, filed a complaint against respondent No.4, Manisha Nagesh Shinde, who was running a fair price shop. The Tahsildar (Supply) conducted an enquiry from 16.7.2010 to 21.7.2010 and found serious illegalities and irregularities. On 31.8.2010, a show cause notice was issued to respondent No.4. After hearing both parties, the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad, by order dated 9.9.2010, cancelled the licence of the fair price shop and confiscated the deposit amount of Rs.1000/-. The District Supply Officer also lodged a complaint with the police, resulting in FIR No. 19 of 2010 against respondent No.4. Aggrieved, respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supply), Aurangabad. The petitioner, being the original complainant, filed an intervention application and was heard. The Deputy Commissioner, by judgment and order dated 7.1.2011, rejected the appeal. Respondent No.4 then filed a revision before the Minister of Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The Minister allowed the revision, setting aside the cancellation. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 6401 of 2011, which was remitted back to the Minister for reconsideration. After reconsideration, the Minister again allowed the revision. Hence, the present writ petition. The High Court found that the Minister had not considered the evidence on record, including the inspection report and the show cause notice, and had not given the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing. The court held that the Minister's order was perverse and violated principles of natural justice. The court quashed the Minister's order and restored the order of the District Supply Officer cancelling the licence.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Revision - Natural Justice - The Minister, while exercising revisional powers under the Maharashtra Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Order, 2005, must consider all evidence on record and pass a speaking order. In this case, the Minister set aside concurrent findings of cancellation of a fair price shop licence without properly appreciating the evidence of serious irregularities found during inspection, and without giving the complainant an opportunity to be heard. Held that the revision order was unsustainable and liable to be set aside (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Minister, while exercising revisional powers, was justified in setting aside the concurrent findings of the District Supply Officer and the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the fair price shop licence without properly considering the evidence and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the complainant.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Minister's order dated 18.4.2012, and restored the order of the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad dated 9.9.2010 cancelling the licence of respondent No.4.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- fair hearing
- revision powers
- consideration of evidence
- speaking order
