Bombay High Court

SHRI MASANAI DEVI MAHILA BACHAT GAT NESARI THR. ITS CHAIRMANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ORS.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as the order complied with natural justice and the proper remedy of revision before the Commissioner remains available.

Summary

The petitioner, a Mahila Bachat Gat, challenged an order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the District Supply Officer, alleging that it was issued without a hearing and violated procedural requirements. The petitioner argued that no report was submitted and the proposal was not processed by the concerned authorities. The Court examined the record and found that notices were issued, the parties were heard, and the principles of natural justice were complied with. It noted that the appropriate remedy of revision before the Commissioner had already been pursued, and the petitioner had previously approached the Commissioner who remanded the matter. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory revision remedy, and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy for challenging the order of the District Supply Officer—writ petition or revision before the Commissioner?
Whether the order passed by the District Supply Officer complied with the principles of natural justice.

Subjects

natural justice
revision
writ petition
administrative law
district supply officer

Judgment

                                                       44-WP-4406-2026 (C).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4406 OF 2026

Shri Masanai Devi Mahila Bachat Gat Nesari
Thr. Its Chairman                                                    ...Petitioner
       Versus
State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Chief Secretary,
Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Ors.                ...Respondents

                                 …..
Adv. Tanaji Mhatugade, Advocate for Petitioner.
                                …..


                                      CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                      DATE     : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

P.C. :

           Heard.

2.         A preliminary objection has been raised by learned AGP that the

order passed on 04.06.2026 by District Supply Officer is susceptible to

revision before Commissioner.

3.         The counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petition

is entertainable because without hearing the petitioner, impugned order

is passed. No proper procedure is followed by the authority. No report

was submitted or the proposal was processed by the concerned

authorities.




     ZIP                                                                 1 of 2
                                                     44-WP-4406-2026 (C).doc


4.         It reflects from the impugned order that notices were issued to

the contesting parties, they were heard and the order is passed. I find

that there is sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice. The

remedy of revision cannot be bypassed. On earlier occasion also, the

petitioner had directly approached the Commissioner who remanded

the matter to the District Supply Officer vide order dated 11.02.2026. I

am not inclined to entertain the petition, in view of self-imposed

restrictions. The writ petition is dismissed.

5.         It would be open for the petitioner to avail the remedy as is

permissible in law.

                                                [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




     ZIP                                                               2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…