Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This petition takes exception to the order date 06.06.2012, passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Revision No. VAM-1011/P.K.302-11/N.P. 21. 3. The background facts, which lead to institute the present writ petition, as disclosed in the writ petition, in nutshell, are as under:- a) The petitioners herein are the card holders of the fair price shop of respondent No.6 and on the basis of the complaints made by the petitioners and other villagers, the licence to run the said fair price shop has been cancelled. The said fair price shop was allotted in favour of respondent No.6 for village Ghungrala. The card holders from village Wanjarwadi were also attached to the shop of respondent No.6 for some period. Respondent No.6 was selling the food grains at higher rate and was giving less quantity of food grains to the card holders. He was also selling the food grains and kerosene in black market. Therefore, the petitioners and other card holders made complaints against respondent No.6 to the respondent authorities. b) The Tahsildar, Umri, District Nanded conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 1.7.2009 to the District Supply Officer, Nanded and accordingly acting upon the said report, the District Supply Officer, suspended the authorization of fair price shop of respondent No.6. c) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Nanded, dated 1.12.2009, respondent No.6 preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. In the said revision, the petitioners and other card holders made an application and prayed for dismissal of the revision filed by respondent No.6. Respondent No.3 by his order dated 15.5.2010, allowed the revision partly and remitted the matter back to respondent No.4 for fresh decision. It is the case of the petitioners that the said enquiry is still pending and no fresh decision has been taken by the respondent No.4 in pursuance to the order dated 15.5.2010 passed by respondent No.3. d) It is further case of the petitioners that thereafter also, respondent No.6 continued his illegal activities and continued to sell the food grains and kerosene at higher rate. Respondent No.6 was used to distribute less quantity of food grains and kerosene to the concerned card holders, including the petitioners. d) It is further case of the petitioners that thereafter also, respondent No.6 continued his illegal activities and continued to sell the food grains and kerosene at higher rate. Respondent No.6 was used to distribute less quantity of food grains and kerosene to the concerned card holders, including the petitioners. The petitioners and other card holders made complaint on 29.12.2009 to the concerned authorities and requested to take appropriate action against respondent No.6. One of the card holders, also made complaint dated 5.1.2010 stating therein that respondent No.6 has lifted quota for the month of December and the same was not distributed to the card holders and the same was retained by him for selling the same in the black market. It is further case of the petitioners that the Tanta Mukti committee has also passed resolution resolving therein that respondent No.6 was not distributing the food grains and was indulged in various illegalities and therefore, the fair price shop should not be continued with respondent No.6. It is further case of the petitioners that inspite of making several complaints to the respondent authorities, no action was taken by the authorities and therefore, again on 10.1.2011, the petitioners as well as other card holders made complaints to the Tahsildar as well as to the District Supply Officer alleging therein that the respondent No.6 is selling kerosene in black market and because of which, the card holders are not getting kerosene and the food grains. e) It is further case of the petitioners that because of illegal activities of respondent No.6, as stated herein above, on acting secret information, the police authority had raided the said premises and seized a quota of kerosene from respondent No.6 and one another person. Accordingly crime bearing No. 1 of 2011 has been registered against respondent No.6 on 12.1.2011 with Kuntur police station for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Respondent No.6 was arrested in the said crime and was in P.C.R. f) Respondent No.6, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the registration of crime, preferred criminal writ petition No. 184 of 2011 in this Court, contending that the concerned P.S.I. has no power to seize the quota and lodge criminal prosecution. Since, this Court was not inclined to consider the prayers of respondent No.6 and therefore, on 5.10.2011, he withdrew the said writ petition. Since, this Court was not inclined to consider the prayers of respondent No.6 and therefore, on 5.10.2011, he withdrew the said writ petition. g) It is further case of the petitioners that after considering the inquiry report of respondent No.5 and after considering the fact of registration of crime against respondent No.6, the District Supply Officer i.e. respondent No.4 herein, by his order dated 3.2.2011 cancelled the authorization of fair price shop as well as licence of kerosene of respondent No.6 and the alternate arrangement was made and shop of village Ghungrala was attached to the fair price shop at village Rui (Bk), by order dated 17.2.2011. h) Respondent No.6 preferred revision No. 79 of 2011 before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 after hearing both sides and after considering the evidence on record, by order dated 11.5.2011 dismissed the revision filed by respondent No.6 and confirmed the order dated 3.2.2011 passed by respondent No.4. i) Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.2011, passed by respondent No.3, respondent No.6 filed revision before respondent No.2. Though the petitioners were party respondents to the earlier proceeding, they were not joined as party respondents in the revision filed before respondent No.2. The petitioners as well as other villagers came to know about filing of said revision, they therefore, made an application before respondent No.2 for joining them as party respondents and further prayed that they may be heard in the matter. j) It is further case of the petitioners that inspite of bringing to the notice of respondent No.2 i.e. the Minister, of all aspects about illegalities committed by respondent No.6, by order dated 6.6.2012, respondent No.2 permitted respondent No.6 to run the fair price shop and kerosene licence by imposing fine of Rs.5000/-. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 2 has committed error in allowing the Revision filed by the respondent No. 6 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. In fact, the proceeding filed by respondent No. 6 was not maintainable as two separate proceedings challenging two separate orders were not filed. Thus the Hon’ble Minister has exceeded his jurisdiction. In fact, the proceeding filed by respondent No. 6 was not maintainable as two separate proceedings challenging two separate orders were not filed. The present petitioners were not joined as party respondents though they were complainants and were parties in proceeding before lower authorities. Therefore, on this count also, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside. It is further submitted that the Minister has also held that, respondent No. 6 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. 6. On perusal of evidence on record, it would reveal that all charges levelled against respondent No. 6 have been proved. Both the authorities have concurrently held that charges against respondent No. 6 have been proved. Not only that, but one Criminal Case has been registered against respondent No. 6, as he has kept the quota of kerosene at some other place for selling it in black market. Serious offence has been registered against him. Earlier to this also, the License of respondent No. 6 was suspended. Therefore, it is submitted that considering all these aspects, the Hon’ble Minister ought not to have allowed the Revision. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No.6 was selling food grains and kerosene and therefore, two separate proceedings should have been initiated by respondent No.6. Learned counsel submitted that even Tanta Mukti committee also passed Resolution resolving therein that respondent No.6 was not distributing the food grains and has committed various illegalities and therefore, the fair price shop should not have been granted to him. Learned counsel invited my attention to the pleadings in the petition, grounds taken therein and submitted that once respondent No.2 i.e. Minister having been accepted the findings of the District Supply Office, which were confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division Aurangabad, should not have caused interference in the order of the District Supply Officer. It is submitted that when the charges against the licence holder are established, there was no occasion for respondent No.2 to cause any interference in the order passed by the District Supply Officer. Therefore, he submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. It is submitted that when the charges against the licence holder are established, there was no occasion for respondent No.2 to cause any interference in the order passed by the District Supply Officer. Therefore, he submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submitted that, order of suspension was issued without following due procedure under the statute. It is submitted that the order passed by the authority on 3.2.2011 was without making enquiry by respondent No.4. It is submitted that the petitioners are in habit of making complaints. Respondent No.6 was not given a copy of any complaint and hence factum of filing of complaint is denied for want of knowledge. It is submitted that police constable has no power to file criminal case and to initiate action in respect of petroleum products. Without giving notice to respondent No.6, by order dated 3.2.2011, the fair price shop authorization and kerosene licence of respondent No.6 is cancelled only on the basis of lodging of criminal case. It is submitted that inspite of direction dated 15.5.2010, no enquiry was conducted and without giving opportunity of hearing to respondent No.6, order dated 3.2.2011 came to be passed. It is submitted that respondent No.6 filed revision challenging the both the orders of cancellation. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad ignored the fact that respondent No.6 was not given opportunity of being heard by the District Supply Officer. The show cause notice was not given to respondent No.6 and therefore, whole enquiry, without issuing show cause notice to respondent No.6, stood vitiated. It is submitted that, in fact, no charges were framed and no show cause notice was issued to respondent No. 6 and as such there is no question of finding respondent No.6 guilty. 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 District Supply Officer, if he finds that the District Supply Officer has not followed principles of natural justice, or material placed on record has not been considered. 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 District Supply Officer, if he finds that the District Supply Officer 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.6 pressed into service, a reported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parmeshwar Sihoratan 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.6, has given one more opportunity to continue the distribution of essential commodities and there cannot be any infirmity in such directions by 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. Upon careful perusal of the order passed by the District Supply Officer, it is abundantly clear that the said authority has considered the report received from the Tahsildar and after making proper enquiry has cancelled the licence of respondent No.6 to run the fair price shop and allotment of kerosene to the card holders belonging to village Ghungrala. It appears that the District Supply 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.6 to run the fair price shop and distribution of kerosene to the villagers from village Ghungrala. 8. It appears that the District Supply 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.6 to run the fair price shop and distribution of kerosene to the villagers from village Ghungrala. 8. From careful perusal of findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, it appears that the said authority has noted the fact that the Naib Tahsildar (Supply) Naigaon had been to village Ghungrala and inspected the shop on 16.12.2010 and upon inspection, he found that there was 34 quintals of wheat, 22 quintals of rice, 5 quintals of sugar, 170 bags of palm oil and 7 container of kerosene. The Naib Tahsildar had carried out the panchnama in presence of panchas and it is reveled from the statements of the panchas that respondent No.6 has not lifted kerosene quota for the month of December. However, on 6.12.2010, respondent No.6 lifted 2200 liters of kerosene for village Wanjarwadi. When the said authority on 12.1.2011 requested respondent No.6 to submit relevant record for inspection, however, respondent No.6 did not make available the said record for inspection of the said authority. Inspite of specific directions given by the authority to submit the record in respect of allotment of food grains and kerosene to the card holders, respondent No.6 chosen not to submit the said report to the Tahsildar. 9. It is also noted that offence is registered against respondent No. 6 with police station Kuntur, since he had committed serious illegalities in running the fair price shop. After hearing all concerned, the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad has taken a note of the fact that the District Supply Officer before taking action against respondent No.6 of cancellation of the licence, has considered entire material on record and after detail enquiry has rightly cancelled the licence. The Deputy Commissioner, after scrutinizing entire record, recorded his satisfaction that the enquiry has been properly conducted as per the norms laid down in the Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991. 10. The Deputy Commissioner, after scrutinizing entire record, recorded his satisfaction that the enquiry has been properly conducted as per the norms laid down in the Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991. 10. The Revisional authority has also taken a note that there is report from police station, Kuntur dated 12.1.2011 and reports of Naib Tahsildar (Supply) Naigaon dated 16.12.2010 and 17.1.2011 and complaint dated 17.1.2011 and upon considering the entire material placed on record, he recorded his conclusion that respondent No.6 has committed illegalities and the charges levelled against are proved. The authority has also taken a note of the fact that inspite of giving sufficient opportunity to respondent No.6, he continued his illegalities and sold the essential commodities at higher price than prescribed by the Government. He has not distributed essential commodities to the card holders and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner found that the interference in the order passed by the District Supply Officer is unwarranted in the facts of the case. 11. Respondent No.6 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 para7, the Minister found that, upon perusal of the inspection report and documents in respect of the fair price shop of respondent No.6 i.e. revision applicant, he has sold kerosene and also food grains at higher price and also he has distributed/allotted less quantity of food grains and kerosene than the quantity fixed as per the Government policy. The Minister has also considered the fact that an offence under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act is registered against the respondent No.6 with Kuntur police station. The Minister has observed that to give one more business opportunity to respondent No.6 by imposing fine of Rs. 5000/-, respondent No.6 should be allowed to run the fair price shop and retail kerosene and accordingly the Minister has passed the impugned order. 12. Upon careful perusal of para 7 of the impugned judgment, it is abundantly clear that, though respondent No.2 has accepted and held that certain deficiencies were found during inspection of the shop run by respondent No.6, therefore rightly imposed fine of Rs.5000/- on respondent No.6, however, without any basis has permitted respondent No.6 to run the fair price shop. 12. Upon careful perusal of para 7 of the impugned judgment, it is abundantly clear that, though respondent No.2 has accepted and held that certain deficiencies were found during inspection of the shop run by respondent No.6, therefore rightly imposed fine of Rs.5000/- on respondent No.6, however, without any basis has permitted respondent No.6 to run the fair price shop. Respondent No.2 should not have exceeded his jurisdiction and should have confined itself 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.6 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 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.6. When there is overwhelming material placed on record by the cardholders and there is report by the Tahsildar who is responsible Government Officer at Taluka place and further such report has been accepted by the District Supply Officer and action of District Supply Officer to cancel the licence granted in favour of respondent No.6 has been upheld by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), who has rejected first revision filed by respondent No.6, by any stretch of imagination, respondent No.2 by cryptic findings should not have partly allowed the revision of respondent No.6. Such exercise of powers by the respondent No.2 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). 13. 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. 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. 14. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the impugned judgment and order dated 06.06.2012, passed by the Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection department, in Revision Application No. VAM-1011/P.K.302/11 N.P.21 cannot be sustained in law and the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. 14. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the impugned judgment and order dated 06.06.2012, passed by the Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection department, in Revision Application No. VAM-1011/P.K.302/11 N.P.21 cannot be sustained in law and the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. The order dated 3.2.2011, passed by the District Supply Officer, Nanded cancelling the licence of respondent No.6 to run the fair price shop, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad on 11.5.2011, stands confirmed. 15. Rule made absolute in the above terms. The petition is allowed to the above extent and stands disposed of. 16. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion about the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad dated 15.5.2010 in revision No. 2010/S.B./R.P. 4. 17. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 prays for stay to this judgment and order for a period of two weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently opposed this prayer. However, in the interest of justice, effect, operation and implementation of this judgment and order is stayed for a period of two weeks from today.