Judgment : 1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to the orders both dated 25/04/2011 passed by the Hon’ble Minister, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra, by which order the Revisions filed by the respondent No.4 against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 07/12/2010 came to be allowed and resultantly the petitioner’s fair price shop and the licence for retail distribution of kerosene came to be cancelled. 3) In the present proceedings the matter had reached by way of Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. The Additional Commissioner by his order dated 07/12/2010 had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and set aside the order passed by the District Supply Officer and thereby had reinstated the licence in respect of the fair price shop as well as the licence for retail kerosene. The Additional Commissioner in his order, as can be seen, has made observations, which are comprised in Item Nos.1 to 5 before the operative part of the said order. The Additional Commissioner has held that the proceedings do not disclose as to whether the reply of the petitioner to the District Supply Officer has been dealt with. In so far as Item No.3 is concerned, since the petitioner had kept the shop closed between the period 06/01/2010 to 30/03/2010 and the petitioner’s card holders were attached to the shop of one Shivaji Palkar. It was necessary for the authorities to record as to who was responsible for the irregularities, if any. The Additional Commissioner has observed that it does not appear that such an enquiry was conducted. In so far as Item No.4 is concerned, the District Supply Officer has not dealt with the case of the petitioner that prior to the instant action, no action was taken against the petitioner. The Additional Commissioner has further held that the record also does not disclose that pursuant to order dated 06/05/2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Amravati Division, Amravati, the District Supply Officer has carried out inspection of the shop of the petitioner. The Additional Commissioner has further held that the record also does not disclose that pursuant to order dated 06/05/2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Amravati Division, Amravati, the District Supply Officer has carried out inspection of the shop of the petitioner. 4) As indicated above, the Revision filed by the respondent No.4 in respect of both the fair price shop as well as the kerosene retail licence was impugning, the said order of the Additional Commissioner wherein the said observations as mentioned herein above have been made. However, the impugned order dated 25/04/2011 passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. the Hon’ble Minister for Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra ex facie discloses that the Revisional Authority has not dealt with the said observations/findings of the Additional Commissioner and by merely recording that there is no substance in the said observations has upheld the order of the District Supply Officer holding that the findings recorded by the District Supply Officer need to be confirmed. In my view, the Revisional Authority was required to consider whether the findings arrived at by the Revisional Authority was on the basis of the material on record and if it was not so the Revisional Authority ought to have considered whether the revisional jurisdiction could have been exercised. However, the Revisional Authority has chosen to brush aside the order of the Additional Commissioner by stating that there does not appear to be any substance in the said observations. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner is a well reasoned order and, therefore, the Revisional Authority ought to have considered the Revision in that context. 5) In that view of the matter, the impugned orders in respect of both the fair price shop as well as the retail kerosene licence are required to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. 6) It is required to be noted that the respondent No.4 in the present petition has filed an affidavit in reply wherein the respondent No.4 has stated that on account of the behaviour and conduct of the petitioner as to the manner in which he runs the fair price shop as well as the retail kerosene licence, there are serious allegations of the villagers. It is contended that the petitioner on account of his conduct is highly unpopular and that has resulted in the resolution being passed by the Gram Sabha. In my view, the Revisional Authority though strictosensu is not bound to consider the said material in the Revision, however, considering the fact that the petitioner is running a fair price shop and a retail kerosene licence, which caters to the villagers, it would be proper for the Revisional Authority to consider the Revision having due regard to the say of the villagers, which may be submitted through the respondent No.4. Hence, the following directions. i) The impugned orders both dated 25/04/2011 are quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Revisional Authority i.e. The Hon’ble Minister, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra for a de novo consideration of the Revision Applications. ii) The Revision Applications would be considered in terms of the directions as mentioned herein above. iii) The Revisional Authority would thereafter record finding in respect of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. iv) The parties to appear before the Revisional Authority i.e. The Hon’ble Minister, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra on 22nd August, 2011. v) The Revisional Authority thereafter to decide the said Revision Applications within a period of three months. 7) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. 8) In the meantime, the present arrangement for the card holders would continue till the matter is decided by the Revisional Authority.