CHANDANA KISAN VALVIversusTHE HONBLE MINISTER FOOD CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA MUMBAI AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:18685
                                                                         2-WP-2225-2018.odt

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                            WRIT PETITION NO.2225 OF 2018
                                 Smt. Chandana Kisan Valvi
                                           VERSUS
                     The Hon’ble Minister Food, Civil Supply and Others
                                              …..
           Mr. D. S. Bagul, Advocate for the Petitioner
           Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for the Respondents – State
           Mr. Samir S. Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent No.5
                                             …..
                                        CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                        DATE       : 08.04.2026

           PER COURT :

           1.    Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.


           2.   The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2018
           passed by the learned Minister, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer
           Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Vaiana/1416/Case
           No.184/NaPu23, whereby the Minister partly allowed the review filed
           by respondent No.5 and thereby granted a licence permanently in
           favour of respondent no.5.


           3.   The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the year
           2006, the State allotted a fair price shop in favour of the petitioner.
           On 24.03.2007, a crime was registered against the petitioner under
           Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, pursuant to
           which the District Supply Officer (DSO) cancelled the petitioner’s
           licence of fair price shop. Thereafter, upon a full-fledged trial, the
           petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
           Navapur. Following her acquittal, the petitioner applied to the Sub-
                                               1
                                                            2-WP-2225-2018.odt

Divisional Officer, Nandurbar, seeking restoration of her licence,
which had been cancelled in the year 2007. However, by order dated
11.11.2010, the DSO rejected the said application.


4.    Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision
application, which also came to be dismissed on 07.10.2011 by
respondent No.3 – Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nashik Division,
Nashik. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Minister by
filing a revision under Clause 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled
Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1975 (for short ‘the
Order, 1975’). By order dated 28.09.2016, the learned Minister
allowed the revision partly and directed issuance of the licence in
favour of the petitioner. During the interregnum, on 23.07.2015, the
DSO issued a proclamation inviting applications for temporary
allotment of the said fair price shop. Pursuant thereto, three women
self-help   groups   (Bachat   Gats)   submitted     applications,      and
accordingly respondent no.4 granted a temporary licence in favour of
respondent No.5.


5.    The learned counsel submits that, in fact, since 10.11.2016, the
petitioner has been running the fair price shop. Thereafter, it
transpired that respondent No.5 filed a review before the Hon’ble
Minister. The petitioner appeared in the said proceedings and pointed
out that she is the original resident of village Talawipada. He further
submits that the allotment of the said fair price shop in favour of
respondent No.5 was purely temporary and only by way of a stop-gap
arrangement. However, the Hon’ble Minister allowed the review
application filed by respondent No.5 and granted a permanent licence
in her favour. Therefore, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Minister

                                   2
                                                            2-WP-2225-2018.odt

committed an error in allowing the review application filed by
respondent No.5.

6.    Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 and the
learned AGP for the State support the order passed by the learned
Minister. They submit that the earlier order passed by the learned
Minister allowing the revision filed by the petitioner was based on a
specific ground that the petitioner was not residing in village
Talawipada. It is submitted that the learned Minister, in exercise of
powers under Clause 24 of the Order, 1975, was empowered to
review his own order within a period of one year. Since the review
application was filed within the prescribed period, the learned
Minister has rightly exercised the said power and passed the
impugned order.


7.        Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon
perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Minister, it is
evident that the review application was filed within a period of one
year. Under Clause 24 of the Order, 1975, the learned Minister is
empowered to entertain a review application filed within the
prescribed period. However, as regards the merits of the order passed
in review, it is noted that when the petitioner’s revision was initially
allowed, during the interregnum, the District Supply Officer (DSO)
had issued a proclamation and granted a temporary licence in favour
of respondent No.5. The said proclamation clearly stipulated that the
allotment was purely temporary in nature. Accordingly, respondent
No.5 was granted the fair price shop licence only as a stop-gap
arrangement, with a view to ensure that the card-holders do not
suffer.

                                    3
                                                                 2-WP-2225-2018.odt

8.      Once such licence was issued purely on a temporary basis, the
learned Minister ought not to have allowed the review application so
as to grant a permanent licence in favour of respondent No.5.
Moreover, while entertaining the review application, the learned
Minister has not recorded any reasons as to what was the apparent
error in the earlier order warranting review. In the absence of any
finding regarding an error apparent on the face of the record, the
exercise of review jurisdiction is unsustainable.


9.      Therefore, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by
the learned Minister is contrary to the terms of the proclamation and
the nature of the licence granted to respondent No.5, and is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. The same is liable to be quashed and
set aside.


10.     In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned Minister, Food, Civil Supplies
and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in
Vaiana/1416/Case No.184/NaPu23 is quashed and set aside.


11.     Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                      [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]

Sameer/April-2026




                                      4