Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1927 (BOM)

Kaushalyabai v. Hon''ble Minister

2018-08-06

ROHIT B.DEO

body2018
JUDGMENT Rohit B. Deo, J. (Oral) - Heard Shri M.I. Dhatrak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.V. Palshikar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Shri I.N. Choudhari, learned Counsel for respondents 4 to 10. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The husband of the petitioner Mr. Ganesh Shivdas Neware was granted a fair price shop authorisation in the year 1985. Respondents 4 to 10 lodged certain complaints against the said authorisation holder leading to issuance of show cause notice for cancellation of the authorisation, by respondent 3-District Supply Officer. The licence came to be cancelled by order dated 05-10-2015. 4. The husband of the petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of fair price shop authorisation before the Commissioner who, by order dated 06-1-2016, in exercise of revisional powers under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 was pleased to set aside the order of the District Supply Officer, by and under which the authorisation to run the fair price shop was cancelled. 5. Since the husband of the petitioner was not in a position to manage the fair price shop due to medical ailments, the petitioner applied for transfer of authorisation in her name, which was permitted by order dated 19-5-2017. 6. In the interregnum, it appears that on 18-7-2016 respondents 4 to 10 approached the Hon''ble Minister under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 challenging the order dated 06-1-2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Hon''ble Minister, by order impugned dated 12-9-2017, has set aside the order dated 06-1-2016 and the order of the District Supply Officer of cancelling the authorisation to run the fair price shop is restored. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Dhatrak submits that the order impugned is bad in law for reasons more than one. The first submission is, that although the authorisation came to be transferred in the name of the petitioner on 19-5-2017, the notice of the proceedings is issued to the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner is not even a party to the revision. The other submission is that the Hon''ble Minister depossal of the revision in undue haste and the farcical proceedings are, therefore, unsustainable in law. Both the submissions are well merited. 8. The petitioner is not even a party to the revision. The other submission is that the Hon''ble Minister depossal of the revision in undue haste and the farcical proceedings are, therefore, unsustainable in law. Both the submissions are well merited. 8. The order impugned reveals that the petitioner is not a party to the revision. The husband of the petitioner Mr. Ganesh Neware is arrayed as respondent 3. The Hon''ble Minister was oblivious to the fact that the authorisation was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 19-5-2017. Non application of mind is writ large upon the face of the order impugned. The order impugned is vitiated on the ground that the petitioner was neither a party nor was otherwise given any opportunity to show cause against the cancellation of the authorisation. 9. Be it noted that the husband of the petitioner was asked to appear before the Hon''ble Minister on 20-7-2017. It is averred, and there is no rebuttal in the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the State, that the husband of the petitioner appeared on 20-7-2017, however, he was neither supplied a copy of the memo of revision nor was he permitted to place on record written submissions. A discussion touching the matter ensued and the Hon''ble Minister closed the revision for orders. It is further averred in the petition that it was brought to the notice of the Hon''ble Minister that the fair price shop is presently run by the petitioner, which averment has gone uncontroverted. 10. It is more than obvious that the order impugned is grossly illegal and is indeed a nullity. The petitioner in whose favour the authorisation is transferred was not even a party to the revision. She was even otherwise not given any opportunity of hearing. Notice was issued to her husband and a farcical hearing followed. The averment that the husband of the petitioner was not supplied the copy of the memo of revision nor was he permitted to file on record written submissions, and the proceedings were closed for orders on the same day, in ugly haste, have gone uncontroverted. 11. The manner in which the proceedings have been conducted would suggest malice in law, if not malice in fact. The authorisation of the petitioner to run the fair price shop is cancelled in a farcical proceeding without she even being a party thereto. 11. The manner in which the proceedings have been conducted would suggest malice in law, if not malice in fact. The authorisation of the petitioner to run the fair price shop is cancelled in a farcical proceeding without she even being a party thereto. A case is made out for imposition of exemplary costs. The order impugned dated 12-9-2017 is set aside. 12. The petition is allowed with costs of ? 10,000/- to be paid by respondent 1-Hon''ble Minister to the petitioner.