Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1612 (BOM)

Jay Maa Mahila Bachat Gat v. State of Maharashtra

2009-11-27

A.H.JOSHI, A.R.JOSHI

body2009
JUDGMENT : A. H. JOSHI, J. :- Appellant herein was the respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No.2616 of 2009. 2. Writ Petition No.2616 of 2009 was filed by present respondent no.4, who was aggrieved by the order passed by Deputy Commissioner [Supply]. Nagpur Division, Nagpur. dated 9th January, 2009, as confirmed by Hon'ble Minister of Food and Civil Supplies by his Order dated 11th May, 2009. 3. A Kerosene Retail License was granted in favour of respondent no.4 by District Supply Officer. Gadchiroli, by his order dated 5th May, 2008. 4. Upon receipt of a complaint, the District Supply Officer, Gadchiroli, by Order dated 18th September, 2008, caneled the license and granted it in favour of present appellant, so also issued a fresh proclamation. 5. The respondent no.4, having felt aggrieved by these orders, preferred a Revision Application before the Deputy Commissioner [Supply]. Nagpur - the Respondent No.2. The Revision Application was allowed by order dated 9th January, 2009, and the proclamation dated 18th September, 2008 was canceled and the Respondent No.2 directed that the license be issued in the name of present appellant. 6. The respondent no.4 carried a further Revision Application before the Hon 'ble Minister against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner [Supply]. The said Revision was heard and dismissed by order dated 11th May, 2009. 7. In the Writ Petition filed by the respondent no.4, it challenged the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner [Supply] as well as order passed by Hon'ble Minister. Petitioner sought the relief as follows :- “a) To declare the Petitioner's Mahila Bachat Gat members are eligible for the allotment of license for retail kerosene distribution shop, in accordance with the relevant laws in forcr, and the order of cancellation as passed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are unconstitutional and illegal and it be set aside. b) To direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to issue the allotment of license to the petitioner's Mahila Bachat Gat and to restrain them from allotting the licese to the Respondent No.4 or cancel it, if is already allotted to it." [Quoted from page no.52 of the appeal paperbook]. 8. The ground which was put forward before learned Single Judges was as follows:- "7........................................................ 8. The ground which was put forward before learned Single Judges was as follows:- "7........................................................ ........The orders passed by the authorities cannot be sustained as they are based on an assumption that the members of the petitioner group were not the locals of a particular village and the license/ authorization was to be granted only to cater the needs of the particular village and not for the Taluka or a cluster of villages. The authorities also failed to consider that the Mahila Gram Sabha had passed the resolution in favour of the petitioner group only." [Quoted from page no.62 of the appeal paperbook. Underlining is done for convenience]. 9. The learned Single Judge heard the Writ Petition, and being convinced about the ground which was raised, quoted in the foregoing para, has allowed the Writ Petition by Judgment and Order dated 6th July, 2009. 10. Present appellant takes an exception to the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. 11. It is urged that [a] The findings by learned Single Judge are not suppol1ed by facts on record and it is factually an incorrect assumption that the license was meant to cater to the needs of cluster of villages around Kurud. Taluka-Charmorshi. [b] The respondent no.4 cannot justify that order as is based on assumption that the license was for catering to the need of entire Taluka Chamorshi and, therefore five out of eleven members of the respondent no.4 not being ordinary residents of village Kurud. was not a factor adverse. 12. Learned Adv., has then pointed out as to how the error must have crept in while the learned Single Judge of this Court was driven to believe a factual perception as to area of operation to which the shop/license was to cater, and which assumption was raised due to error in reading the proclamation. 13. In order to demonstrate the submissions, learned Adv., has pointed out that: [a] The advertisement [Document No.2] contained a table, which reads as follows:- [Quoted from page no.12 of the appeal paper book]. [b] Gram Sabha of village Kurud of village Kurud considered the matter of allotment of shop for village Kurud, Taluka Chamorshi. [c] The question was not placed before Gram Sabhas of any other village other than Kurud. [b] Gram Sabha of village Kurud of village Kurud considered the matter of allotment of shop for village Kurud, Taluka Chamorshi. [c] The question was not placed before Gram Sabhas of any other village other than Kurud. [d] Had the question of license for entire Chamorshi Taluka, consideration by villagers or Gram Sabha of village Kurud alone could not have solitary or exclusive power to decide the matter. [e] Had various other villages in the Taluka Chamorshi been interested the question would arise and actually arises is as to why and how villagers of village Kurud alone should be consulted? [f] The order by which license was allotted very clearly indicates the location of shop to be Kurud village and for Kurud. The said allotment can be read as follows:- 14. From above factual aspects, what is clear is as follows:- [1] The village for which Kerosene Retail license was being considered, and was granted, was village Kurud only. [2] The license was not for entire Taluka Chamorshi. [3] The Bachat Gat of the appellant has all members of village Kurud. [4] Bachat Gat founded by respondent no.4 has only five members from village Kurud, and others are from village Nimgaon, which is alleged to be in the proximity of village Kurud. [5] Condition that Self-help Group should be formed by residents of the same village is not in dispute by either of the parties. [6] Even respondent no.4 does not dispute that only five of its members are reisidents of village Kurud, and others are not. 15. In the result, it is clear that the order passed by the learned Single Judge proceeds on the foundation that the license was intended for the purpose of Chamorshi Taluka, or cluster of villages which was an assumption to which the learned Single Judge was led due to the erroneous submissions and error in construing the proclamation dated 11th September, 2008 [Annex.9] and the text of license. 16. In the circumstances, appeal succeeds. Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2616 of 2009 is set aside. Orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Hon'ble Minister would revive. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear own costs. Appeal allowed.