PARSHURAM DNYANDEO RINDHEversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:23617


                                                  {1}           WP 8023 OF 2010


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                WRIT PETITION NO. 8023 OF 2010
                             WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.872 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 : Mr.V.M.Jaware
                 Advocate for Respondent no.6 : Mr.Shrikant G. Kawade,
                                                   Mr. Chandrakant V. Thombre
                                                   …..
                                 {2}              WP 8023 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 11-08-2010 in Review

Application No.oSvuk&1410@288@iz-dz-52@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 to sell

Kerosene by the Government of Maharashtra. 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
                                  {3}              WP 8023 OF 2010


present petitioner, Tahsildar, Newasa noticed several irregularities,

therefore, show cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer

(SDO) on 08-06-2006 seeking explanation as to why action should

not be taken. That, subsequently, finding there to be no satisfactory

explanation, the SDO, by order dated 18-09-2006, 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

21-08-2007, 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 no.6 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 11-08-2010 passed in Review

Application is bad in law. That, review was not maintainable. That,
                                  {4}             WP 8023 OF 2010


scope of review has been expanded by the Hon’ble Minister which

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 11-08-2010 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 sale of Kerosene, 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
                                  {5}             WP 8023 OF 2010


by imposing penalty. That, penalty is already paid and also accepted

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 sell Kerosene.       It appears that, Tahsildar, Jeur

(Haibati), Tq.Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar, received complaint dated

19-05-2006 from Gram Panchayat pointing out irregularities in sale

of Kerosene and 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,

SDO seems to have issued show cause notice to present respondent

no.6 on 08-06-2006 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

18-09-2006, seems to have been cancenlled permit/licence issued in
                                      {6}              WP 8023 OF 2010


favour of present respondent no.6.              Against the same, said

respondent no.6, moved application before Deputy Commissioner

(Supply), Nashik and also prayed stay, but by order dated

21-08-2007, 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@1656@iz-dz-405@uk-iq-23.     But by order dated 01-12-2008

revision came to be dismissed maintaining the order of the Deputy

Commissioner (Supply) as well as SDO, Shrirampur. Aggrieved by

the same, Review Application bearing No. oSvuk&1410@288@iz-dz-52@uk-

iq-23 came to be filed and by order dated 11-08-2010, 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 of Kerosene. However, charges raised at

Sr.Nos.2 and 3 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
                                   {7}             WP 8023 OF 2010


entertaining review, subsequent Hon’ble Minister seems to have

considered the reason for disruption of regular supply of Kerosene 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 11-08-2010

i.e. 15 years back, cannot be faulted at. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that the

Government has already stopped issuing licence/permit for sale of

Kerosene and for said reason also, nothing survives. 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 :
                              {8}             WP 8023 OF 2010




                           ORDER

      (I) Writ Petition stands dismissed.


      (II) Civil Application is also disposed of.



                                     ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                             JUDGE




SPT