Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1483 (BOM)

Dharavati Dhanraj Meshram v. State of Maharashtra

2012-08-07

R.K.DESHPANDE

body2012
JUDGMENT Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The order dated 29-4-2011 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, in Revision No. VAV-1111/P.No.62/N.P.23 filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. In para 7 of the petition, the petitioner has made the averments as under: "7. ... The petitioner submits that she was not served with copy of revision application under clause 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Regular 1975, filed by respondent no.4 and 5, before respondent State. The hearing dated 30.09.2010 fixed before Hon'ble Minister was cancelled and thereafter the petitioner was communicated about next date of hearing on 14.10.2010. It is submitted even on 14.10.2010 the petitioner was not supplied copy of Memo of Revision despite request made in that regard. The petitioner sought time to engage counsel however the Hon'b1e Minister closed the matter on 14.10.2010. By impugned order dated 29.04.2011 the Hon'ble Minister set aside order passed by Deputy Commissioner and maintained the order passed by D.S.O. in issuing order of cancellation of authorization of Fair Price Shop. A copy of impugned order dated 29.04.2011 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I. By this petition the petitioner challenges impugned order dated 29.04.2011 on following grounds." Though the reply is tiled by the respondent No.2, the aforesaid averments have not been denied. In the reply-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. A and 5, who are the original revision-petitioners before the Hon'ble Minister, it has been stated in para 2 as under: "... The answering respondents had filed the revision application along with documents duly accompanied by two sets thereof, for the respondents therein i.e. Dy. Commissioner and present petitioner. It is further submitted that, the answering respondents not having knowledge whether the office of Hon'ble Minister had supplied the copy of Revision Application to the Respondent No. 2 therein i.e. present Petitioner, or the present Petitioner had received copy from the record of revision before the Hon'ble Minister." It is thus apparent that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the memo of revision along with the documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner has received the copy of the revision along with the documents. The order impugned was thus passed without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to meet the case put forth in the revision by the respondent Nos. A and 5. The same cannot, therefore, be sustained and it will have to be quashed and set aside and the matter will have to be sent back to the Hon'ble Minister for decision afresh in accordance with law. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 29-4-2011 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, in Revision No. VAV-1111/ P.No.62/N.P.23 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Hon'ble Minister to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 5. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.