Bombay High Court
Jaisantoshmimata Mahila Bachat Gat., ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 26 June, 2018
Author: S.B. Shukre
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1 wp.1071.16.jud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1071 OF 2016
Petitioners : 1] Jaisontoshimata Mahila Bachat Gat,
Borala (Jah), Post Khandale Shinde,
Taluka Malegaon, District Washim, through
its President Smt. Suman Narayan Vahekar,
Aged 40 years, Occ : Agriculturalist,
R/o Borala (Jah), Taluka Malegaon,
Dist. Washim.
2] Smt. Gangubai w/o Gajanan Avtade,
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Borala (Jah), Post Khandale Shinde,
Taluka Malegaon, District Washim.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Food Civil Supply and
Consumer Protection Departments,
Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai.
2] Additional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3] District Food Supply Officer,
Collector Office, Civil Lines,
Washim, Tal. & Distt. Washim.
4] Jaylaxmi Mahila Bachat Gat Borala (Jah),
Tq. Malegaon, District Washim through its
President Sou. Bharti w/o Mahadev Jatale,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Borala (Jah), Post Khandale Shinde,
Taluka Malegaon, District Washim.
5] Jaylaxmi Mahila Bachat Gat, Borala (Jah),
Tq. Malegaon, District Washim, through its
Secretary, Sou. Sunita w/o Madhukar Jatale,
Aged about 45 years, Occ. Household,
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 01:26:47 :::
2 wp.1071.16.jud
R/o Borala (Jah), Post Khandale Shinde,
Taluka Malegaon, District Washim.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri V.P. Maldhure, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 26th JUNE, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties present before the Court. Respondent No.4 though duly served, however, remained absent. 02] It is seen from the record of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Minister that the power of review or revision under Clause 15 of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "Order of 1966") was exercised once by the Hon'ble Minister when he passed the final order on 25/09/2014 dismissing the application of respondent No.4. As the order went against respondent No.4, the respondent No.4 again sought to have a review of the order dated 25/09/2014 and that is how the order impugned in this petition, dated 20/09/2015, came to be passed by the Hon'ble Minister. In the impugned order, the Hon'ble Minister, it appears, has not dealt with the crucial aspect ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 01:26:48 ::: 3 wp.1071.16.jud of the case as to whether or not a second review and that too of his own order can be undertaken by the competent authority like the Hon'ble Minister in exercise of his power under Clause 15 of the Order of 1966. This aspect of the case ought to have been considered by the Hon'ble Minister.
03] There is also a serious objection taken by the petitioners as regards the manner in which the impugned order has been passed by the Hon'ble Minister. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, no notice was issued to the petitioners and it has been wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioners' representative was afforded hearing while passing the impugned order. The learned Assistant Government Pleader banks upon the statement made in the impugned order to hint at the possibility of granting of hearing to the petitioners. However, on perusal of the original record, I could not come across any noting or any proof regarding issuance of notice to the petitioners and it's receipt by the petitioners as well. This makes the conclusion as irresistible. The petitioners were not served with any notice nor were given any opportunity of being heard when the impugned order was passed by the Hon'ble Minister.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 01:26:48 :::
4 wp.1071.16.jud 04] Thus, on the grounds aforestated, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. In the result, the following order is passed :
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. iii. The matter is remanded back to the Hon'ble Minister for hearing the second review application afresh in accordance with law.
iv. The Hon'ble Minister is requested to issue notices to the petitioners and the contesting parties and give them proper opportunity of submitting their respective stands before him.
v. The Hon'ble Minister is also requested to consider as to whether or not the second review and that too of his own order is permissible under Clause 15 of the Order of 1966 and if the Hon'ble Minister is of the opinion that it is permissible under the law, the Hon'ble ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 01:26:48 :::
5 wp.1071.16.jud Minister is further requested to apply the well settled principles of review to the present matter. vi. The matter may be disposed of by the Hon'ble Minister as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before him.
vii. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
(S.B. SHUKRE, J.) *sandesh ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 01:26:48 :::