Bombay High Court
PARSHURAM DNYANDEO RINDHEversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- ABHAY S WAGHWASE
Holding
The review by the Minister was maintainable and lawful, so the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the order dated 12‑08‑2010 issued by the Minister of Food and Civil Supply, which reviewed and set aside an earlier cancellation of a fair‑price‑shop licence granted to respondent No. 6. The licence had been cancelled by the Sub‑Divisional Officer after a complaint of irregularities, and the cancellation was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner. The respondent filed a revision, which the Minister rejected, but later filed a review that was allowed, restoring the licence and imposing a modest penalty. The petitioner argued that the review was not maintainable and that the Minister had exceeded his jurisdiction. The Court examined the procedural history, found no illegality in the Minister’s exercise of review power, noted that the penalty had been paid, and therefore dismissed the writ petition and disposed of the accompanying civil application.
Issues considered
- Whether the Minister's review of the cancellation order was maintainable under administrative law.
- Whether the Minister exceeded his jurisdiction by altering the earlier order without sufficient grounds.
- Whether the imposition of a penalty and restoration of the licence constitute a legal exercise of power.
- Whether the writ petition challenging the review order should be dismissed.
Subjects
- fair price shop
- licence cancellation
- administrative review
- penalty
- Food and Civil Supply
- writ petition
- government licence
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23614
{1} WP 8014 OF 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8014 OF 2010
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.890 OF 2011
. Parshuram Dnyandeo Rindhe
Age: 29 Years, Occu.: Agri. & Social Work,
R/o. Jeur (Haibati), Tq.Newasa,
District : Ahmednagar. ….Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary,
Food and Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 32.
2. The Minister,
Food and Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 32.
3. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply),
Nashik Division, Nashik.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Shrirampur Division, Shrirampur,
District – Ahmednagar.
5. The Tahsildar, Newasa,
Tq.Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
6. Deelip S/o Bhaurao Ugale
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Jeur (Haibati), Tq.Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar. …..Respondents
…..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Narayan B. Narwade
AGP for Respondent nos.1 to 5 : Ms.Vaishali Dama
Advocate for Respondent no.6 : Mr.Shrikant G. Kawade,
Mr. Chandrakant V. Thombre
…..
{2} WP 8014 OF 2010
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 12 JUNE, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 17 JUNE, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Mr.Thombre, learned counsel for respondent no.6 submits that
his appearance be discharged. In view of this, appearance of
Mr.Thombre, learned counsel is discharged.
2. Petitioner herein challenges the order passed by respondent
no.2/the Hon’ble Minister, Food and Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection Department Mantralaya dated 12-08-2010 in Review
Application No.oSvfo&1407@[email protected]@uk-iq-23, altering the earlier
order dated 01-12-2008.
3. Mr.Narwade, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out
that, present respondent no.6 was allotted licence/permit by the
Government of Maharashtra to run fair price shop. He is respondent
no.3 in several proceedings which commenced from application to
Tahsildar till Deputy Commissioner (Supply) of which review was
considered by the Hon’ble Minister. He submitted that, on
19-05-2006 on representation made by Gram Panchayat as well as
present petitioner, Tahsildar, Newasa noticed several irregularities,
{3} WP 8014 OF 2010
therefore, show cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer
(SDO) on 15-06-2006 seeking explanation as to why action should
not be taken. That, subsequently, finding there to be no satisfactory
explanation, the SDO, by order dated 29-08-2006, cancelled the
licence/permit issued in favour of present respondent no.6. That,
said order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply)
and stay was sought to the order of the SDO, but by order dated
24-08-2007, stay was refused. It is pointed out that against it, he
approached the Hon’ble Minister, Food and Civil Supply and
Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. In said
proceedings, present petitioner was respondent no.3. It is further
pointed out that, by order dated 01-12-2008, revision filed by present
respondent was dismissed. However, surprisingly, he again preferred
review application before the Hon’ble Minister and to the utter shock
and surprise of the petitioner, without assigning sound reasons,
review application has been allowed.
4. Thus, according to Mr. Narwade, learned counsel for the
petitioner, subsequent order dated 12-08-2010 passed in Review
Application is bad in law. That, review was not maintainable. That,
scope of review has been expanded by the Hon’ble Minister which
{4} WP 8014 OF 2010
could not be done in review. That, there was no reason to review the
order, as earlier, the Hon’ble Minister had rejected revision in which
there was no error or irregularity on face of record so as to entertain
and allow review and for above reasons, he prays to allow writ
petition by setting aside order dated 12-08-2010 passed in review
application.
5. Defending the above order passed in review application,
learned counsel for respondent no.6 pointed out that, only because of
some marriage in the house of respondent no.6, who was beneficiary
of licence/permit to conduct business of fair price shop, for 2-3 days
there was no supply. That, marriage card is also placed on record.
That, there were no illegalities, irregularities or non-compliance of
procedures in conducting the business. That, action of present
petitioner, who was respondent no.3 throughout, is politically
motivated. That, in revision, crucial aspects put forth were not
considered and therefore, review was required to be followed, which
was very much maintainable. He took this Court through the
observations of the Hon’ble Minister while entertaining review
application and further pointed out that penal action has been taken
by imposing penalty. That, penalty is already paid and also accepted
{5} WP 8014 OF 2010
by the Government. Therefore, nothing remains for consideration
and for above reasons, he prays to dismiss the writ petition for want
of merits.
6. After considering the above submissions and on going through
the record, it appears that there is no dispute that present respondent
no.6 was beneficiary of licence/permit issued by Food and Civil
Supply and Consumer Protection Department of the Government of
Maharashtra to run fair price shop. It appears that, Tahsildar, Jeur
(Haibati), Tq.Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar, received complaint dated
19-05-2006 from Gram Panchayat pointing out irregularities in
conducting business of fair price shop and therefore, including
present petitioner, Gram Panchayat sought action of transfer of said
licence/permit to other person. Copy of the same was also forwarded
to District Supply Officer, Shrirampur. Thereafter, the SDO seems to
have issued show cause notice to present respondent no.6 on
15-06-2006 pointing out the irregularities during inspection and
further, calling upon explanation as to why permit should not be
cancelled. In consequence to the same, the SDO, by order dated
29-08-2006, seems to have been cancelled permit/licence issued in
favour of present respondent no.6. Against the same, said
{6} WP 8014 OF 2010
respondent no.6, moved application before Deputy Commissioner
(Supply), Nashik and also prayed stay, but by order dated
24-08-2007, the same was rejected. Dissatisfied by the same, he
moved the Hon’ble Minister, Food and Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection Department vide Revision Application no.
oSvfo&1407@1657@iz-dz-406@uk-iq-23. But by order dated 01-12-2008
revision came to be dismissed maintaining the order of the Deputy
Commissioner (Supply), Nashik as well as SDO, Shrirampur.
Aggrieved by the same, Review Application bearing No.
oSvfo&1407@1657@iz-dz406@uk-iq-23 came to be filed and by order dated
12-08-2010, Review Application came to be allowed holding that
review applicant/present respondent no.6 has admitted his mistake
and fault. That, on account of marriage of his sister, during relevant
period, there was no sale from the fair price shop. However, charges
raised at Sr.Nos.3 and 4 are not aggreable to him. Therefore, the
Hon’ble Minister thought it fit to impose costs of Rs.5,000/- and to
restore the licence/permit.
7. There is no dispute that review is maintainable. Indeed earlier,
the Hon’ble Minister has rejected the revision application, but after
entertaining review, subsequent Hon’ble Minister seems to have
{7} WP 8014 OF 2010
considered the reason for disruption of regular supply of items from
fair price shop on account of marriage of sister of respondent no.6.
Marriage card is placed on record. The Hon’ble Minister, while
entertaining review, thought it fit to impose penalty for the lapses on
the part of respondent no.6 in conducting supply of essentials.
Therefore, penal action has already been taken. Statement is made
across the bar by learned counsel for respondent no.6 that by way of
Challan, penalty is paid and it is duly accepted by the Government.
Therefore, by imposing penalty, review seems to have been allowed
and as such there cannot be said to be any illegality as action is also
equally taken by imposing penalty before regularizing and restoring
licence/permit. For above reasons, the impugned order, which is of
12-08-2010 i.e. 15 years back, cannot be faulted at. Hence, there
being no illegality, perversity in the impugned order, this Court does
not find there to be a good reason to interfere. Accordingly,
following order is passed :
ORDER
(I) Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(II) Civil Application is also disposed of.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
Checking your session…