Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This petition takes exception to the order date 31.10.2007, passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra, State, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Revision No. VAM-1606/1595/PK 2061/N.P.21. 3. The background facts, which lead to institute the present writ petition, as disclosed in the petition, in nutshell, are as under:- a) The petitioner is the card holder of the fair price shop of respondent No.4 situated at village Yawal Pimpri, Tanda No.1, Tq. Ghansawangi, District Jalna. The villages attached to the shop of respondent No.4 made complaint stating there he is selling the goods at higher price than prescribed by the Government and not making entires on their card. It was also stated that respondent No.4 was distributing the kerosene in less quantity then they are entitled. b) On the basis of the said complaint, Vibhagiya Dakshata Pathak, Aurangabad visited the shop of respondent No.4 and inspected the same. On making enquiry, there were irregularities in 7 in numbers found. The said Pathak accordingly had submitted its report to the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad. The said report was also sent to the Sub Divisional Officer, Partur. c) The Sub Divisional Officer, Partur issued show cause notice to respondent No.4 on 18.3.2006 and directed him to submit his reply. Since respondent No.4 had not submitted his reply, the Sub Divisional Officer, by his order dated 13.4.2006 cancelled the authorization of respondent No.4 to run the fair price shop. d) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, respondent No.4 preferred revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Divisional Commissioner, on 14.8.2006 dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated 13.4.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Partur. e) It is further case of the petitioner that, respondent No.4 had challenged the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner by filing second revision before the Minister i.e. respondent No.1. The Minister though has observed in his order that the findings recorded by the authorities below are correct, but to give one opportunity to respondent No.4, as he has no source of income, by imposing fine of Rs.10,000/-, had set aside the orders of the authorities below. Hence this petition. 4. The Minister though has observed in his order that the findings recorded by the authorities below are correct, but to give one opportunity to respondent No.4, as he has no source of income, by imposing fine of Rs.10,000/-, had set aside the orders of the authorities below. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that respondent No. 1 has committed error in allowing the Revision filed by the respondent No.4 and the reasoning is unsustainable in the eyes of law. There is no provision in the Act or Rules which permits the authority to condone the illegalities committed by the Licensee and permit him to run the License by imposing only fine. Thus the Hon’ble Minister has exceeded his jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the Minister has also held that, respondent No.4 was guilty and the charges levelled against him are proved. However, he has allowed the Revision by observing that one opportunity is required to be given to respondent No.4. On perusal of evidence on record, it would reveal that all charges levelled against respondent No.4 have been proved. Both the authorities have concurrently held that charges against respondent No.4 have been proved. Not only that, an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 is registered against respondent No.4 and Special Case No. 9 of 1999 is pending against respondent No.4 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalna. Learned counsel invited my attention to the pleadings in the petition, grounds taken therein and submitted that once respondent No.1 i.e. Minister having been accepted the findings of the authorities below, should not have caused interference in the said orders. It is submitted that when the charges against the licence holder are established, there was no occasion for respondent No.1 to cause any interference in the orders passed passed by the authorities below. Therefore, he submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that, order of suspension was issued without following due procedure under the statute. It is submitted that the petitioner is in habit of making complaints. Respondent No.4 was not given a copy of any complaint and hence factum of filing of complaint is denied for want of knowledge. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that, order of suspension was issued without following due procedure under the statute. It is submitted that the petitioner is in habit of making complaints. Respondent No.4 was not given a copy of any complaint and hence factum of filing of complaint is denied for want of knowledge. Without giving opportunity of hearing to respondent No.4, by order dated 13.4.2006, has cancelled the authorization of fair price shop of respondent No.4. It is submitted that respondent No.4 filed revision challenging the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad ignored the fact that respondent No.4 was not given opportunity of being heard by the Sub-Divisional Officer. However, the Divisional Commissioner, erroneously has confirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. It is submitted that the scope of revision before learned Minister is not restricted and it is open for the Minister to review the order passed by the lower authorities, if he finds that the authorities below has not followed principles of natural justice, or material placed on record has not been considered. In support of this contention, learned counsel for respondent No.4 pressed into service, a reported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ParmeshwarSihoratan Bohara and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 1997 (2) Mh.L.J. 252 . Learned counsel submitted that the Minister taking into consideration the financial position of respondent No.4, has given one more opportunity to continue the distribution of essential commodities and there cannot be any infirmity in such directions of the Minister. It is submitted that while allowing revision, respondent No.2 has given cogent reasons and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order. 6. I have given careful considerations to the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the respective parties. With the able assistance of counsel for the parties, I have perused the pleadings in the petition and grounds taken therein, annexures thereto, orders passed by the authorities below and the judgments cited across the bar by the counsel for the respective parties. 7. With the able assistance of counsel for the parties, I have perused the pleadings in the petition and grounds taken therein, annexures thereto, orders passed by the authorities below and the judgments cited across the bar by the counsel for the respective parties. 7. Upon careful perusal of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, it is abundantly clear that the said authority has considered the report received from the Vibhagiya Dakshata Pathak and after making proper enquiry has cancelled the licence of respondent No.4 to run the fair price shop and allotment of kerosene to the card holders belonging to village Yawal Pimpri. It appears that the Sub Divisional Officer has considered the complaints received from various card holders and after making thorough enquiry has cancelled the licence granted in favour of respondent No.4 to run the fair price shop and distribution of kerosene to the villagers from village Yawal Pimpri. 8. From careful perusal of findings recorded by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, it appears that the said authority has noted the fact that; i) respondent No.4 was not lifting the quota as per the directions of the Tahsildar. ii) He was not maintaining the record properly. iii) He was not keeping the receipt book as well as complaint book, iv) He was selling the kerosene at higher price. v) He was not distributing the goods as per the entitlements of the consumers. 9. It is also noted that offence is registered against respondent No. 4 under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act and Special Case No. 9 of 1999 is pending. After hearing all concerned, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad has taken a note of the fact that the Sub Divisional Officer before taking action against respondent No.4 of cancellation of the licence, has considered entire material on record and after detail enquiry has rightly cancelled the licence. The Divisional Commissioner, after scrutinizing entire record, recorded his satisfaction that the enquiry has been properly conducted and no reply is filed by respondent No.4 to the show cause notice issued to him. It is observed that the irregularities committed by respondent No.4 are serious in nature. The Divisional Commissioner, considering the these facts, had dismissed the revision filed by respondent No.4. 10. It is observed that the irregularities committed by respondent No.4 are serious in nature. The Divisional Commissioner, considering the these facts, had dismissed the revision filed by respondent No.4. 10. Respondent No.4 herein did file second revision before the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection and upon considering the material placed on record and after hearing the parties in para 8, the Minister found that, upon perusal of the record, the action taken by the authorities below is correct. However, the Minister has observed that to give one more business opportunity to respondent No.4 by imposing fine of Rs. 10000/-, respondent No.4 should be allowed to run the fair price shop and retail kerosene and accordingly the Minister has passed the impugned order. 11. Upon careful perusal of para 8 of the impugned judgment, it is abundantly clear that, though respondent No.1 has accepted and held that certain deficiencies were found during inspection of the shop run by respondent No.4, therefore rightly imposed fine of Rs.10000/- on respondent No.4, however, without any basis has permitted respondent No.4 to run the fair price shop. Respondent No.1 should not have exceeded his jurisdiction and should have confined himself within the revisional powers, that too, while entertaining the second revision. By way of impugned judgment and order, the Minister has partly allowed the revision observing that one more business opportunity is required to be given to respondent No.4 to run the fair price shop and for distribution of kerosene to the card holders. Such finding is answered against the interest of card holders. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to reproduce herein below the objects of Essential Commodities Act :- “The object of the Essential Commodities Act is to provide, in the interests of the general public, for control of production, supply and distribution of trade and commerce in commodities which are specified in the Act to be essential commodities. The power of search and seizure are incidental and supplementary to other powers which are necessary to secure the objects for which the Essential Commodities Act has been passed. The power of search and seizure are incidental and supplementary to other powers which are necessary to secure the objects for which the Essential Commodities Act has been passed. The very object of the Essential Commodities Act is to check the inflationary trends in prices and to ensure equitable distribution of essential commodities.” Therefore, considering the object of the Act, as quoted above, the Minister should have given importance to the interest of the card holders rather than the interest of respondent No.4. When there is overwhelming material placed on record by the petitioner and there is report of the Dakshata Pathak and further said report has been accepted by the Sub Divisional Officer and action of Sub Divisional Officer to cancel the licence granted in favour of respondent No.4 has been upheld by the Divisional Commissioner (Supply), who has rejected first revision filed by respondent No.4, by any stretch of imagination, respondent No.1 by cryptic findings should not have partly allowed the revision of respondent No.4. Such exercise of powers by the respondent No.1 i.e. Minister of Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, is contrary to reasons and objects of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order (1975). 12. This court in the case of ShivajiTulshiram Thakre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2012 (3) All M.R 789, in para 9, has held thus:- “9. Now coming to the merits of the matter, in the order dated 31-8-2009 passed by the Minister, which has been reviewed, the finding was recorded that the charges of misappropriation have been established and taking into consideration all the aspects, it was held that respondent No.4 had violated the terms and conditions of the fair price shop licence. In review, the finding that the charges have been established against respondent No.4 has been confirmed. It is only on humanitarian ground that one more opportunity was given to respondent No.4 to pay the amount, which he had misappropriated, along with fine of Rs.5,000/- as a condition for restoration of the licence. Such is not the scope of review under clause 24(2) of the said Order. The order impugned changes the view which was earlier taken on re-hearing of the matter. Such is not the scope of review under clause 24(2) of the said Order. The order impugned changes the view which was earlier taken on re-hearing of the matter. The view taken earlier being a possible view of the matter, no interference was called for in the jurisdiction of review under clause 24(2) of the said Order. The order passed by the Minister, impugned in this petition, cannot, therefore, be sustained.” In the facts of that case, the Minister concerned, restored the licence on humanitarian ground and ordered the licensee to pay back amount of misappropriation alongwith fine of Rs.5000/-. This court while appreciating the facts of that case, held that the Minister concerned has not exercised the powers of review within the scope of clause 24 sub clause (2) of the relevant Order. 13. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2007, passed by the Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection department, in Revision Application No. VAM-1606/1595/P.K. 2061/N.P. 21 cannot be sustained in law and the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. The order dated 13.4.2006, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Partur cancelling the licence of respondent No.4 to run the fair price shop, which is confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad on 14.8.2006, stands confirmed. 14. Rule made absolute in the above terms. The petition is allowed to the above extent and stands disposed of.