In a case concerning the variation in quantities of food grains and other non-compliances by a fair price shop, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has asserted that the Minister, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, while acting as a revisionary authority under the Distribution Order, 1975, must record positive findings with respect to allegations of misappropriation of food grains, on which, order for cancellation of authorization to run fair price shop, was passed by the District Supply Officer (DSO).
Since the Minister has not recorded any adverse findings with respect to the regularity of proceedings, in which orders were passed by the DSO, the Court said that the Minister could have interfered with the impugned orders only on arriving at satisfaction with respect to the legality or propriety of the impugned orders and/or regularity of proceedings.
The Court also pointed out that the Minister had quashed the orders passed by the DSO only because the fifth respondent was running the fair price shop in a tribal area for around 20 years without any complaint, and around 221 cardholders had made a statement that they had no grievance. Accordingly, the Court quashed the orders passed by the Minister, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rohit W. Joshi noted that the Minister has not recorded a positive finding that the findings recorded by the DSO or the Commissioner are incorrect or unsustainable, and rather, the Minister has recorded that the fifth respondent was running a fair price shop in a tribal area for around 20 years without any complaint in the past. The Bench also noted that the Minister has recorded that 221 cardholders had no grievance against the fifth respondent, and had directed a fresh enquiry into the records of the fair price shop.
The Bench then referred to Clause 24 (1) of the Distribution Order, 1975, to note that the revisional powers under the said provision can be exercised to arrive at satisfaction with respect to the legality or propriety of the order impugned and the regularity of the proceeding, in which the order is passed.
Accordingly, the Bench said that the scope of revision is limited, and a Revisional Authority can set aside the order impugned before it only upon recording a positive finding as regards the legality or propriety of the impugned order or any adverse findings with respect to the regularity of proceedings, in which the impugned order is passed. Under the said provision, the Revisional Authority cannot act as if it were the first Authority.
Briefly, the petitioners, who are cardholders attached to a fair price shop in Tembli village, operated by the fifth respondent, Shivkumar Patil, lodged a complaint with the authorities regarding irregularities in the functioning of the said fair price shop. Following the complaint, the District Supply Officer (DSO) constituted an Enquiry Committee, which submitted an adverse report.
Later, the DSO held the fifth respondent guilty of breaching Clause 18(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 (Distribution Order, 1975). The DSO also ordered the forfeiture of the 100% security deposit, cancellation of the authorisation for the fair price shop, and the recovery of the cost of the misappropriated wheat, rice, and pulses at the prevailing market value. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), also confirmed the findings of fact by the DSO.
Aggrieved, the fifth respondent preferred a second revision before the Minister, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, who quashed the orders of the DSO and the Deputy Commissioner, and directed a fresh inspection of the records to ascertain the veracity of the allegations and to record statements of at least 25% of the cardholders. Pending this fresh decision, the authorisation of the fair price shop was ordered to be restored. However, in the meantime, the complainants challenged the legality of the Minister’s order before the High Court.
Appearances:
Advocates A.S. Lanjewar and N.R. Saboo, for the Petitioners
AGP S.B. Bissa and Advocate S.M. Vaishnav, for the Respondent
