Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shashikant Ghadge, along with other villagers, complained to the Tahsildar about mismanagement and irregularities by respondent No.5, Bhimrao Gokhale, in running a fair price shop and kerosene licence at village Sonegaon. An inquiry was conducted by the Naib Tahsildar on 4.1.2009, and a report was submitted on 5.1.2009. On 28.1.2009, the District Supply Officer directed registration of a crime against respondent No.5, and on 12.3.2009, cancelled both the fair price shop and kerosene licences and forfeited the deposit. Respondent No.5 filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (respondent No.3), who on 1.4.2009 remitted the matter back to the District Supply Officer for re-enquiry. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a revision before the Minister (respondent No.2) on 27.4.2009, which was pending. Meanwhile, during the re-enquiry, a special Gram Sabha meeting was called. The Minister, by order dated 23.2.2012, allowed the revision filed by respondent No.5 and restored the licences without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the Minister's order. The court found that the Minister's order was passed without giving notice or hearing to the petitioner, who was the complainant and had a direct interest in the matter. The court held that the principles of natural justice require that the complainant be heard before a revisional authority sets aside an order of cancellation. The court set aside the Minister's order and remitted the matter back to the Minister for fresh hearing after giving notice to all parties, including the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Revision Proceedings - The Minister, while exercising revisional powers under the Maharashtra Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Order, 2005, restored the licence of a fair price shop without affording an opportunity of hearing to the complainant who had initiated the proceedings. Held that the order is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice as the complainant had a right to be heard before the revisional authority. (Paras 5-7)
B) Essential Commodities Act - Fair Price Shop Licence - Cancellation and Restoration - The District Supply Officer had cancelled the licence after an inquiry found irregularities. The Additional Commissioner remitted the matter for re-enquiry. The Minister, without hearing the complainant, restored the licence. Held that the Minister's order is set aside and the matter remitted for fresh hearing after giving notice to all parties. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Minister's order restoring the fair price shop licence of respondent No.5 without hearing the petitioner/complainant is sustainable in law?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.2.2012 passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra State, Mumbai is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Minister for fresh hearing after giving notice to all parties including the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Right to be Heard
- Revision Proceedings
- Fair Price Shop Licence
- Maharashtra Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Order
- 2005
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (03) 11
WRIT PETITION NO. 2703 OF 2012
Mr. M.B. Kolpe for petitioner, Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni for respondent No. 5
Shashikant s/o Chandrabhan Ghadge
The State of Maharashtra, The Hon'ble Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, The Additional Commissioner (Civil Supply) Aurangabad Division, The District Supply Officer, Osmanabad, Bhimrao Pandurang Gokhale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Minister restoring the fair price shop licence of respondent No.5 without hearing the petitioner/complainant.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Minister's order dated 23.2.2012 and restoration of the cancellation of the licence.
Filing Reason
The Minister allowed the revision of respondent No.5 and restored the licence without giving notice or hearing to the petitioner, who was the complainant.
Previous Decisions
The District Supply Officer cancelled the licence on 12.3.2009. The Additional Commissioner remitted the matter for re-enquiry on 1.4.2009. The petitioner filed a revision against that order on 27.4.2009, which was pending. The Minister then passed the impugned order on 23.2.2012.
Issues
Whether the Minister's order restoring the fair price shop licence of respondent No.5 without hearing the petitioner/complainant is sustainable in law?
Whether the principles of natural justice require that the complainant be heard before a revisional authority sets aside an order of cancellation?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Minister passed the order without giving him notice or hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
The respondents argued that the petitioner had no locus standi or that the order was passed after considering the material on record.
Ratio Decidendi
The principles of natural justice require that a complainant, who has initiated proceedings leading to cancellation of a licence, must be heard before a revisional authority sets aside such cancellation. Failure to do so vitiates the order.
Judgment Excerpts
It is not in dispute that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner had filed revision before the Minister on 27.4.2009, which was pending. The Minister, without hearing the petitioner, allowed the revision of respondent No.5 and restored the licence.
The order passed by the Minister is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The petitioner and other villagers complained to the Tahsildar about irregularities by respondent No.5. An inquiry was conducted on 4.1.2009 and a report submitted on 5.1.2009. On 28.1.2009, the District Supply Officer directed registration of a crime. On 12.3.2009, the District Supply Officer cancelled the licences. Respondent No.5 filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, who on 1.4.2009 remitted the matter for re-enquiry. The petitioner filed a revision before the Minister on 27.4.2009 against that order. On 23.2.2012, the Minister allowed the revision of respondent No.5 and restored the licences without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Order, 2005:
