JUDGMENT A.H. Joshi, J. Admit 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Tathod waives service for respondent no.5. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Thakre, waives service for respondent nos.1 to 4. 3. Appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent. Facts in brief 4. Petitioner is the license holder of fair price shop which was run at village Chandai, Tahsil Mangrulpir, District Washim. 5. Inspection of the shop was conducted by authorities. Various irregularities and violation of the terms of the license were noticed and was reported by Tahsildar to the District Supply Officer. 6. After service of show cause notice and receipt of reply, District Supply Officer cancelled the license of the present appellant by order dated 20th October 2003. 7. The respondent no.3 had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner by way of intervention application which was allowed. 8. The appellant preferred appeal before Deputy Commissioner which was decided against him. Aggrieved by the same, appellant herein approached to the Government, invoking exercise of powers of the review under clause 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1975 which is hereinafter referred to as said orders. 9. It is seen that the present respondent no.5 was arrayed as respondent no.3 before the Hon'ble Minister. 10. The review application was heard by the Hon'ble Minister and was decided by order dated 2nd March 2009. 11. The Hon'ble Minister has recorded the facts in brief in his order. He has then recorded reasons in paragraph 5 of the order. Hon'ble Minister has referred to one amongst the irregularities of stock being found in excess. Hon'ble Minister has then observed that the food-grains which were to be distributed to the schools under the scheme of nutritious food to students were not distributed and were found lying in the shop of the petitioner. 12. The acts/omissions of present appellant have been viewed by Hon'ble Minister as an irregularity than an act of misappropriation. 13. Hon'ble Minister then took a view that the license of the petitioner can be continued by imposing on him penalty of Rs.10,000/-, and confiscation of stock of food-grains found in possession of the license holder in excess, and to distribute the same under public distribution system and amount thereof be deposited in Government Treasury. The writ petition 14. 13. Hon'ble Minister then took a view that the license of the petitioner can be continued by imposing on him penalty of Rs.10,000/-, and confiscation of stock of food-grains found in possession of the license holder in excess, and to distribute the same under public distribution system and amount thereof be deposited in Government Treasury. The writ petition 14. The respondent no.5 who was respondent no.3 filed writ petition No.1950/2009 before this Court against Hon'ble Minister's order before learned Single Judge of this Court. 15. The appellant herein had filed in said writ petition, an application raising preliminary objections to the locus standi of the present respondent no.5 i.e. the writ petitioner. 16. The Averments contained in said application in relation to the grounds of objection to locus standi can be found in para 2 of said application. It was urged therein that, the respondent no.5 claims himself to be a Sarpanch of village Chandai, which is factually incorrect. Due to this lack of status and a false statement, it was urged that the respondent no.5/writ petitioner does not have any right whatsoever, to challenge the order passed by Hon'ble Minister, and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 17. It is seen that Rule was not issued on the said civil application of present appellant and the writ petitioner was neither called, nor he had filed reply. Thus said application was not heard separately. 18. It is an admitted fact that the said writ petition was taken up in the motion hearing itself for final hearing. 19. The learned Single Judge has decided the writ petition after hearing the parties. 20. It is seen that learned Single Judge found that the power of review available to the Hon'ble Minister under Clause 24 (2) of said orders which provided for a review prescribes the grounds on which review could be entertained. 21. It is obvious that the review was not done by the Minister on the ground of error apparent on the face of record. 22. The learned Single Judge found that the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister for the reasons stated in the said order does do not satisfy the test of 'any other sufficient reason' and therefore Hon'ble Minister's order was not sustainable. Learned Single Judge has in the result set aside the order passed by Hon'ble Minister. 23. 22. The learned Single Judge found that the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister for the reasons stated in the said order does do not satisfy the test of 'any other sufficient reason' and therefore Hon'ble Minister's order was not sustainable. Learned Single Judge has in the result set aside the order passed by Hon'ble Minister. 23. Inpresent appeal the said judgment of learned Single Judge is challenged on the grounds which can be summarized as follows- Challenge in this appeal (a) Learned Single Judge ought to have decided petitioner's application raising the objection as to locus standi before hearing the writ petition on merits however, it was not heard, which is a grave error on the part of learned Single Judge, resulting in hearing the petition without a cause of action. (b) That Clause 24(2) provides various grounds on which review can be entertained, and power to review "for any other Sufficient Reason", is expressly included, which is an independent ground. (c) Grounds of review provided in Clause 24 are mutually exclusive. (d) The term 'any sufficient other reason" will have to be construed in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (4) S.C.C.741 (Board of Control for Cricket in India and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others). (e) The State Government is under an obligation to consider that the civil supplies through Public Distribution System are properly maintained. (f) As the maintenance of civil supply is constitutional duty of the State, it would be open to the State to take appropriate action, and for this purpose appellant's license has been revived on compassionate ground. (g) What shall be the extent for penalty was a matter of discretion of Hon'ble Minister and said power has been exercised, which does not call for interference but has been done by learned Single Judge. (h) Appellant has no other source of livelihood, and therefore it is obvious that compassionate view was taken which was within the discretion of the Honourable Minister. 24. Appellant has therefore very emphatically urged that it is necessary to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and restore the Hon'ble Minister's order. Analysis of submissions As to locus standi 25. 24. Appellant has therefore very emphatically urged that it is necessary to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and restore the Hon'ble Minister's order. Analysis of submissions As to locus standi 25. It is seen from the reply filed by respondent no.5 to the application for stay that the respondent no.2 was in fact : (a) One amongst the original complainants; (b) TheMember of Grampanchayat initially; (c) Then was Sarpanch; and; (d) Hestill continues to be a Member of Grampanchayat, though has ceased to be Sarpanch. 26. It is further pointed out by respondent no.5 that : (a) Therespondent no.5 was party before the Hon'ble Minister as respondent no.3; (b) By virtue of being a complainant he was necessary party, before Divisional Commissioner, but was not arrayed however was allowed to intervene; and; (c) Being a party before Minister, the respondent no.5 had every right to challenge the said order. (d) Though objections to locus standi was raised by filing the civil application, it was not pressed and present applicant had participated in the final hearing without any objection, grudge or demour. The appellant is therefore estopped from raising this objection. 27. It is seen that the respondent has not explained as to how he has made the statement that he "is" Sarpanch. The explanation given by the respondent no.5 as indicted herein before can be considered to be adequate in the facts and circumstances to support his locus standi. 28. The appellant has not denied by filing a rejoinder or even during oral submissions - the status as Sarpanch which the respondent no.5 had, in past and his present status as a member of Panchayat. 29. It has to be accepted that in the facts and circumstances on record the averments contained in the civil application which was filed by the petitioner before Single Judge that the respondent no.5 "is not a Sarpanch" on the date of contesting the petition is factually correct, however it is borne on record that the respondent no.5 was a party before the Hon'ble Minister. 30. It is also demonstrated that respondent no.5 was amongst the complainants before the District Supply Officer and intervenor before the Commissioner. The question of locus standi does not have any merit. The objection to locus standi of the writ petitioner therefore, does not deserve any cognizance. 30. It is also demonstrated that respondent no.5 was amongst the complainants before the District Supply Officer and intervenor before the Commissioner. The question of locus standi does not have any merit. The objection to locus standi of the writ petitioner therefore, does not deserve any cognizance. Appellant does not dispute that he has participated in the hearing. 31. Considering the balance of justice, this Court is persuaded and is convinced to hold that assertion by writ petition that "he is Sarpanch" is not an assertion culpable to such extent that he should be non suited. As to other Grounds of Challenge and foundation for Review by Hon'ble Minister. 32. Much emphasis has been given on the observations contained in para 98 of BCCI's Judgment supra with reference to Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, and it is urged that the words "sufficient reason" in Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code are wide enough to include vast range of grounds which would vary upon facts of each case. The power and jurisdiction to review is required to be construed to be wider than was felt prior to the said judgment in BCCI's case. 33. It is argued that the Minister is entitled to review 'for any other sufficient reasons'. We hold that this vast jurisdiction cannot and should not be used for condoning an uncondonable illegality. That too when these acts and omissions could have been an offence punishable under law, when tried and proved, but are not put to test, as no FIR is lodged. Moreover the compassion presupposes proof or admission of facts constituting the delinquency. 34. This Court has scrutinized the record produced by the petitioner and also tested other the submissions. 35. In so far as second aspect of "any other sufficient reason", is concerned, it would be useful to refer to the paragraph 5 of the order passed by Hon'ble Minister. 36. The inspection report and the order passed by the District Supply Officer was considered by the Hon'ble Minister to be factually correct. Adverseness thereof to the appellant, namely that he had failed to distribute 7 quintals of rice to be distributed under the Nutrition Diet scheme to the schools, and even that excess stock being found in the shop are taken as facts proved against present appellant. 37. Adverseness thereof to the appellant, namely that he had failed to distribute 7 quintals of rice to be distributed under the Nutrition Diet scheme to the schools, and even that excess stock being found in the shop are taken as facts proved against present appellant. 37. It is obvious that excess stock is obviously available when record of distribution was or could be fabricated. 38. It has also come on record, as can be seen from the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, that on earlier occasions, the petitioner's license was cancelled due to similar lapses. Therefore, it is vivid that present acts/omissions are not a case of innocent omission or innocent or unintended violation of Rules. 39. This court is constrained to believe that Hon'ble Minister has lost sight of the crucial point as to the failure to distribute the food grains to the citizen below poverty line and to needy and half fed students was a lapse and failure of such nature that it could not have been condoned. 40. Had the Hon'ble Minister was to balance the illegality with deprivation of citizen, the balance of justice could not tilt in favour of a wrongdoer. In fact, the Minister had given an incentive for an illegality that too a person who has track record of repeated the violation and misappropriation of the essential commodities which were provided by the Government on a subsidized costs for distribution to poor and needy for which public money is spent. 41. These acts could never have been sufficient reason for a review on compassion. There can be no compassion for a habitual wrongdoer. 42. Considering all these matters it is vivid that the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister is certainly unjustified. 43. We therefore find that the order of Single Judge does not called for any interference. As such the appeal has no merits and hence the same is dismissed. 44. Parties are directed to bear own costs.