Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. Rule was issued on 26-08-2011. 2. Respondent No. 4 was operating a fair price shop No. 79 in Village Vasai, Tq. Sillod. He was charged with illegally selling food items and kerosene. Criminal trial was initiated against him after suspending his licence. 3. The petitioner submits that prior to 2004 or before proclamation of this shop, it was run by respondent No. 4. In the year 2001, this shop was suspended by the Sub Divisional Officer Sillod, because the respondent No. 4 was found involved in black marketing of kerosene and therefore a crime under sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, came to be registered against respondent No. 5 vide crime No. 3/2001, in Rural Police Station of Sillod. The Sub Divisional Officer, suspended his authorization of fair price shop on 21-06-2001. 4. The petitioner submits that because there was no other fair price shop in the village and it was in the need of villagers and to simplify the Public Distribution System (P.D.S.) it was necessary as the matter of policy by the government and so the proclamation was published in the year 2004. It is submitted that the policy of Government is to involve the women in this system and, therefore, it was specifically for women and the petitioner found suitable for the same, therefore, Gram Sabha of village Vasai has recommended that the fair price shop be given to the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 has authorized the petitioner for the fair price shop. 5. The petitioner, therefore, operated the fair price shop No. 79 at Village Vasai, Tq. Sillod. Allegations of malpractices while operating the fair price shop have been leveled upon the petitioner. Several complaints were made to the authorities. Consequentially, the licence of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 22-12-2010. 6. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 4-Bajirao who earlier held licence for the fair price shop No. 79, suffered a Criminal trial for certain malpractices committed in the year 2001. On acquittal he moved an application for restoration of his licence. 7. It is noteworthy, that respondent No. 4 neither challenged his suspension, nor did he challenge the proclamation dated 07-02-2004 or the order of allotment of the fair price shop dated 23-06-2005. On acquittal he moved an application for restoration of his licence. 7. It is noteworthy, that respondent No. 4 neither challenged his suspension, nor did he challenge the proclamation dated 07-02-2004 or the order of allotment of the fair price shop dated 23-06-2005. In fact, he himself applied in pursuance to the proclamation and was not selected. The order dated 23-06-2005 evidences this fact and the same is not denied by respondent No. 4. The District Supply Officer (D.S.O.) rejected his application by an order dated 06-09-2009. 8. The petitioner submits that respondent No. 4 aggrieved by this order challenged the order by filing Revision of the order of District Supply Officer, (D.S.O.) before respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Supply, decided this Revision Petition and has delivered the order on 26-03-2010, and set aside the order of respondent No. 3 for the only reason that, respondent No. 4 is being acquitted, the shop of the petitioner be given to the respondent No. 4. 9. The order of restoration of licence dated 26-03-2010, replacing the petitioner and restoring the shop No. 79 to respondent No. 4, was challenged before the Hon’ble Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department. It is noteworthy the petitioner has been protected by certain interim orders till the judgment was delivered by the Hon’ble Minister on 29-04-2011. The said judgment is impugned in this petition. This Court protected the petitioner vide its order dated 26-08-2011, in terms of prayer clause (D). 10. The petitioner submits that the Order of Respondent No. 1 is arbitrary and illegal and passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the contents of the petition are based on the legal grounds. The Order of Dy. Commissioner (Supply) cannot be justified for the reason that the mere Judgment of acquittal in Criminal Court does not mean that Respondent No. 4 did not indulge in the activities of black marketing. Moreover, the order of suspension is passed in the year 2001. Respondent No. 4 kept mum till the Judgment of Criminal Court. He never challenged the Order of suspension neither he challenged the order of proclamation. Once the proclamation was finalised the authorisation of Respondent No. 4 was automatically terminated. 11. Moreover, the order of suspension is passed in the year 2001. Respondent No. 4 kept mum till the Judgment of Criminal Court. He never challenged the Order of suspension neither he challenged the order of proclamation. Once the proclamation was finalised the authorisation of Respondent No. 4 was automatically terminated. 11. The petitioner further contends that she is not concerned with the shop of Respondent No. 4 which was suspended quite long back in the year 2001. Respondent No. 4 has not challenged that order at any time and he was involved in the Criminal case. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 shop thus is not functional since 2001. This petitioner has been allowed with the fair price shop as an entirely new shop on the basis of the procedure prescribed by the concerned authorities which is duly followed and then a shop meant for the women Category was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner’s authorization for the fair price shop is absolutely independent and has no concern with respondent No. 4 because when the proclamation was published by the Government there is no reference that in the place of shop of respondent No. 4 this shop is being given to the petitioner. 12. Shri V.D. Sonwane, learned Advocate for respondent No. 4 has contended that though allotment of the shop to the petitioner was pursuant to the proclamation dated 07-02-2004, it ought to be construed that the petitioner was allotted a shop in place of respondent No.4. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order by restoring the shop to him and by taking it away from the petitioner, is a proper order. 13. Learned A.G.P. informs that the petitioner’s licence has been suspended. Because respondent No. 4-Bajirao was acquitted and claimed restoration of the fair price shop, the petitioner-Kamalbai was displaced and respondent No. 4-Bajirao was allotted the said shop. 14. The petitioner contends that she was allotted a shop, pursuant to a proclamation and by following the due procedure of law. Acquittal of respondent No. 4-Bajirao can have no impact on the licence of the petitioner, which was issued pursuant to a proclamation. She makes a serious grievance that there is no document on record to indicate that the proclamation was issued since the licence of respondent No. 4-Bajirao was suspended. 15. I have heard the learned Advocates at length. Acquittal of respondent No. 4-Bajirao can have no impact on the licence of the petitioner, which was issued pursuant to a proclamation. She makes a serious grievance that there is no document on record to indicate that the proclamation was issued since the licence of respondent No. 4-Bajirao was suspended. 15. I have heard the learned Advocates at length. With their assistance I have gone through the petition paper book and various orders passed. 16. I find that the proclamation dated 07-02-2004, does not have any mention that applications for the fair price shop are invited since licence granted to respondent No. 4-Bajirao was suspended or cancelled. It appears to be an independent act of the State. The order dated 23-06-2005, granting licence to the petitioner-Kamalbai make a mention that respondent No. 4-Bajirao was also one of the applicant at serial No. 6. The son of respondent No. 4-Bajirao was also an applicant at serial No. 7. This order indicates that the Government had invited independent applications for issuance of licence to operate a fair price shop. 17. The whole controversy seems to have cropped up owing to the application made by respondent No.4- Bajirao, after his acquittal dated 05-08-2008. The order of granting licence to the petitioner is dated 23-06-2005. Application made by respondent No. 4 has led to the entire confusion. 18. The order dated 06-02-2009, passed by the D.S.O. Aurangabad, indicates that the petitioner-Kamalbai was issued with the licence as a part of the policy of the Government to assist 33% women who have self-help groups. Therefore, the D.S.O. concluded that the acquittal of respondent No. 4-Bajirao will have no impact on the licence of the petitioner who falls in the reservation policy of the Government to allot fair price shop to women self-help groups. 19. The learned A.G.P. has assisted the Court by pointing out the documents pertaining to the proclamation and the selection process undergone by the petitioner. They do not indicate that the proclamation was issued only as a stop gap arrangement owing to the suspension of the licence of respondent No. 4-Bajirao. As observed above, respondent No. 4-Bajirao himself participated in the entire selection process and suffered the order dated 23-06-2005, by which the petitioner was allotted the fair price shop. 20. They do not indicate that the proclamation was issued only as a stop gap arrangement owing to the suspension of the licence of respondent No. 4-Bajirao. As observed above, respondent No. 4-Bajirao himself participated in the entire selection process and suffered the order dated 23-06-2005, by which the petitioner was allotted the fair price shop. 20. I find that respondent No. 4 challenged the order of the D.S.O. dated 06-02-2009, before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. The said authority has concluded that respondent No. 4-Bajirao’s fair price shop licence deserves to be restored owing to his acquittal and the petitioner cannot continue to operate the said shop. With the said judgment, the Revision of respondent No. 4 was allowed. 21. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), before the Hon’ble Miniser. By the impugned judgment dated 29-04-2011, the Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. 22. Learned A.G.P. points out that presently the licence of the petitioner is suspended on account of serious complaints leveled against her. The suspension order dated 22-12-2010, is also placed on record. However, this issue is not before this Court for adjudication. The petitioner submits that she still operates the shop owing to the various orders protecting her, including the order of this Court dated 26-08-2011. 23. Looking at the peculiar facts of the case and the attempt of respondent No. 4 in inter-linking his acquittal with the grant of licence to the petitioner has led to the confusion. I find that the D.S.O. in his order dated 06-02-2009, has correctly understood the position and has arrived at a proper conclusion that the grant of licence to the petitioner by order dated 23-06-2005, was an outcome of the State policy. 24. However, whether only one fair price shop can be operated in Village Vasai, Tq. Sillod, is not clear. It is also not clear as to whether the proclamation dated 07-02-2004 was necessarily on account of the suspension of the licence of respondent No. 4. There is nothing on record to indicate that the proclamation was meant to have a fair price shop as a stop gap arrangement till the decision of the Criminal proceeding in the case of respondent No. 4. I find that all these issues are left, un-answered by the Hon’ble Minister. There is nothing on record to indicate that the proclamation was meant to have a fair price shop as a stop gap arrangement till the decision of the Criminal proceeding in the case of respondent No. 4. I find that all these issues are left, un-answered by the Hon’ble Minister. These issues need to be gone into in order to ensure that the petitioner is not unlawfully divested of the licence of the fair price shop, in as much as if any right is created in respondent No. 4 owing to his acquittal, his rights are not infringed. 25. It is in these circumstances that I quash and set aside the impugned judgment of the Hon’ble Minister dated 29-04-2011. The Revision Petition filed by the petitioner (Page No. 42 of the petitioner paper book) is relegated back to the file of Hon’ble Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, for a fresh adjudication. 26. Both the litigating parties are at liberty to raise all contentions before the Hon’ble Minister. It is expected that the Hon’ble Minister shall first deal with the issue as to whether the grant of licence to the petitioner pursuant to the proclamation of 07-02-2004 was a stop gap arrangement pending decision in the respondent No. 4 case. The Hon’ble Minister shall also look into the aspect that respondent No. 4 had participated in the selection process pursuant to the proclamation and had failed. It also needs to be gone into as to whether acquittal of respondent No. 4-Bajirao would lead to the automatic dislodging of the petitioner from the fair price shop. 27. All these issues and the contentions of the rival parties are expected to be gone into by the Hon’ble Minister. It is made clear that the suspension of the licence of the petitioner on account of malpractices allegedly committed by her, is not a subject matter addressed to this Court and is not being gone into since the petitioner has not challenged the said suspension. It is informed that the petitioner is facing an enquiry as regards the malpractices alleged to have been committed in an independent proceeding under the Essential Commodities Act. 28. It is expected that the Hon’ble Minister shall decide the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three (3) months from today. It is informed that the petitioner is facing an enquiry as regards the malpractices alleged to have been committed in an independent proceeding under the Essential Commodities Act. 28. It is expected that the Hon’ble Minister shall decide the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three (3) months from today. Needless to state that the Hon’ble Minister shall not be influenced by any observations made in this judgment and shall decide the Revision Petition independently on its own merits. 29. With the above directions, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.