Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajendra Devidas Kate, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 04/03/2015 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, State of Maharashtra, which allowed Case No.1115/Pra.Kra8/NA.PU.21 filed by respondent No.5, Savitrabai Phule Mahila Bachat Gat. The petitioner was the original complainant against respondent No.5 regarding irregularities in operating a fair price shop. Respondent No.5, a Bachat Gat (savings group) of 10 women, was allotted a license to operate a fair price shop on 04/10/2010. However, its license was suspended from 03/01/2012 till September 2013 due to several irregularities. During the suspension period, in March 2013, respondent No.5 lifted a quota of food grains illegally, leading to an offence being registered on 08/08/2013 under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975. A show cause notice was issued on 16/11/2013. The Minister's order restored the license without hearing the petitioner, who was a necessary party. The court found that the Minister failed to follow principles of natural justice and that the order was unsustainable. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration after hearing all parties.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - The Minister, while exercising appellate powers, failed to hear the original complainant who was a necessary party, thereby violating principles of natural justice - Held that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside (Paras 2-8).
B) Essential Commodities - Fair Price Shop License - Suspension and Restoration - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sections 3 and 7 - The license of respondent No.5 was suspended due to irregularities, and during suspension, it lifted food grains illegally - The Minister's order restoring the license without considering the gravity of the offence and without hearing the complainant was arbitrary - Held that the matter requires reconsideration by the appellate authority (Paras 4-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister allowing the appeal of respondent No.5 and restoring its license to operate a fair price shop, without hearing the original complainant, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 04/03/2015 passed by the Hon'ble Minister is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration after hearing all parties, including the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Essential Commodities Act
- 1955
- Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order
- 1975
- Fair price shop license suspension
- Appellate authority powers
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 16
Writ Petition No.2701 of 2015
Mr.P.S.Dighe for petitioner, Mr.D.G.Kamble for respondent No.5, Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondent/State
The State of Maharashtra, The Hon'ble Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, The District Supply Officer, Beed, Savitrabai Phule Mahila Bachat Gat Narsoba Nagar, Beed
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Minister allowing the appeal of respondent No.5 and restoring its license to operate a fair price shop.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Minister's order dated 04/03/2015.
Filing Reason
The Minister passed the order without hearing the petitioner, who was the original complainant and a necessary party.
Previous Decisions
The license of respondent No.5 was suspended from 03/01/2012 till September 2013 due to irregularities. An offence was registered on 08/08/2013 under the Essential Commodities Act. A show cause notice was issued on 16/11/2013.
Issues
Whether the Minister's order restoring the license without hearing the original complainant violates principles of natural justice.
Whether the Minister's order is sustainable in law given the serious irregularities committed by respondent No.5.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was not heard by the Minister before passing the impugned order, despite being a necessary party.
Respondent No.5 and the State defended the order, arguing that it was passed after considering the material on record.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate authority must hear all necessary parties, including the original complainant, before passing an order. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice and renders the order unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04/03/2015 passed by the Hon'ble Minister... allowing Case No.1115/Pra.Kra8/NA.PU.21 filed by respondent No.5 herein.
It appears from the record that respondent No.5 is a Bachat Gat which was established comprising of 10 women.
The record reveals that the license of respondent No.5 was suspended from 03/01/2012 till Sept. 2013 due to several irregularities.
In March 2013, respondent No.5 is said to have lifted a quota of the food grains though the license was suspended.
The concerned Tahsildar registered an offence on 08/08/2013 under Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No.5 regarding irregularities in operating a fair price shop. The license of respondent No.5 was suspended. Respondent No.5 filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Minister, who allowed the appeal and restored the license by order dated 04/03/2015. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955: 3, 7
- Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975:
