Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This petition takes exception to the order date 13.10.2011, passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra, State, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Revision No. VAM-1011/P.K./179/N.P.21. 3. The background facts, which lead to institute the present writ petition, as disclosed in writ petition, in nutshell, are as under:- a) The petitioners herein are the card holders of the fair price shop of respondent No.4 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.4 for village Mendha. Respondent No.4 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.4 to the respondent authorities. b) After receipt of the complaint, the Tahsildar, Osmanabad made Enquiry and during the course of enquiry it is found that, there was excess quota of food grains in the shop of respondent No.4. The card holders were not receiving the goods in time. Respondent No.4 used to close down the shop frequently. He also used to sell the goods at higher rate etc.. The Tahsildar, Osmanabad accordingly had submitted the report of inspection to the District Supply Office, Osmanabad. For such illegalities and irregularities, an offence punishable under Section 3 and 7 of the essential Commodities Act was also registered against respondent No.4. Accordingly, acting upon the said report, the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad had issued show cause notice to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 had filed reply to the said show cause notice. However, according to the District Supply Officer, the reply filed by respondent No.4 was not satisfactory and therefore, by his order dated 12.8.2010, the District Supply Officer, has cancelled the licence of respondent No.4 to run the fair price shop. c) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad, dated 12.8.2010, respondent No.4 preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. c) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad, dated 12.8.2010, respondent No.4 preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, after hearing both sides and after considering the evidence on record, by order dated 07.01.2011 dismissed the revision filed by respondent No.4 and confirmed the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by respondent No.3. d) Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2011, passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.4 filed revision before respondent No.1. e) It is further case of the petitioners that inspite of having available all record before respondent No.1, however, without considering the illegalities and irregularities committed by respondent No.4, respondent No.1 permitted respondent No.4 to run the fair price shop and kerosene licence by imposing fine of Rs.10000/-. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1 has committed error in allowing the Revision filed by 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, but one Criminal Case has also been registered against respondent No.4, in respect of illegalities and irregularities committed by him. 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.4 was selling food grains and kerosene at higher price. He was not also issuing receipts to the card holders. It is submitted that if the amounts demanded are not paid, the respondent No.4 was not supplied the goods to the concerned card holders. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No.4 was selling food grains and kerosene at higher price. He was not also issuing receipts to the card holders. It is submitted that if the amounts demanded are not paid, the respondent No.4 was not supplied the goods to the concerned card holders. Considering the illegalities and irregularities committed by respondent No.4, the villages had called general body meeting and passed a resolution and filed complaint with the District Supply Officer as well as the Collector, Osmanabad. 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 District Supply Officer, 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.1 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.4 submitted that, order of suspension of licence was issued without following due procedure prescribed under the statute. It is submitted that the order passed by the District Supply Officer on 12.8.2010 was without making enquiry. It is submitted that the said order is passed only on the basis of the criminal case filed against respondent No.4. The opportunity of personal hearing was not given to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 was not included in the process of enquiry. The opportunity of cross examination was not given to respondent No.4. It is submitted that the complaint filed against respondent No.4 is politically motivated. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad ignored the fact that respondent No.4 was not given opportunity of being heard by the District Supply 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 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.4 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.4, 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.1 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 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.4 to run the fair price shop and allotment of kerosene to the card holders belonging to village Mendha. 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.4 to run the fair price shop and distribution of kerosene to the villagers from village Mendha. 8. From careful perusal of findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, it appears that the said authority has recorded its satisfaction for the action taken by the District Supply Officer. It is also noted that offence is registered against respondent No.4 with Bembli police station, since he had committed serious illegalities in running the fair price shop. From careful perusal of findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, it appears that the said authority has recorded its satisfaction for the action taken by the District Supply Officer. It is also noted that offence is registered against respondent No.4 with Bembli police station, 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.4 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. It is observed that the action of the District Supply Officer is in the interest of the villagers of village Mendha and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad has observed that it is not necessary to interfere with the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad. With these observations the revisional authority has dismissed the revision filed by respondent No. 4 by his order dated 7.1.2011. 9. 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, has allowed the allowed revision filed by respondent No.4. The Minister has observed that to give one more 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. 10. Upon careful perusal of the findings recorded by the Minister, it is abundantly clear that, respondent No.1 has not considered all aspects of the matter and the orders passed by the authorities below. The Ministers though observed that there is criminal case filed against respondent No.4, however, overlooking to the said fact, has allowed the revision by imposing fine of Rs.10000/-and given an opportunity to respondent No.4. 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. The Ministers though observed that there is criminal case filed against respondent No.4, however, overlooking to the said fact, has allowed the revision by imposing fine of Rs.10000/-and given an opportunity to respondent No.4. 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 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 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 petitioners 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.4 has been upheld by the Deputy 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). 11. 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). 11. 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. 12. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the impugned judgment and order dated 13.10.2011, passed by the Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection department, in Revision Application No. VAM-1011/P.K.179/ N.P. 21 cannot be sustained in law and the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. 12. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the impugned judgment and order dated 13.10.2011, passed by the Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection department, in Revision Application No. VAM-1011/P.K.179/ N.P. 21 cannot be sustained in law and the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. The order dated 12.8.2010, passed by the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad cancelling the licence of respondent No.4 to run the fair price shop, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad on 7.1.2011, stands confirmed. 13. Rule made absolute in the above terms. The petition is allowed to the above extent and stands disposed of. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 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.