Scope Of Revisional Order

 

 

JUSTICE Rohit W Joshi, at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Maharashtra Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Minister, on July 19, 2021, in the judgement of the case Nandkishor Onkar Mawaskar and 3 others v. State of Maharashtra and 4 others, delivered on January 6, 2026, observing that the impugned order suffers from serious jurisdictional error. The petitioners are residents of Tembli in Dharni Tahsil of Amravati District. The impugned order has been held clearly unsustainable and liable to be dismissed.

 

The Minister has exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the order. He could have interfered with the impugned orders only on arriving at satisfaction about legality or propriety of the impugned orders and /or regularity of proceedings. The petitioners have, through this petition, challenged the impugned order passed on July 19, 2021, by the Minister. Respondent No. 5, Shivkumar Natthuji Patil is authorised to run fair price shop at village Tembli. The petitioners/complainants had lodged complaint with respect to functioning of his fair price shop. They are Cardholders attached to the shop. On the complaint made by the petitioners, the District Food Supply Officer constituted Enquiry Committee to hold inquiry into the allegations by these Cardholders. The Inquiry Committee submitted the report on December 14, 2020 to the respondent-3, the District Food Supply officer called explanation from the concerned shop-keeper (R-5). In view of adverse report furnished by the Committee, the shop-owner submitted his explanation disputing the findings of the inquiry Committee. After giving hearing to the shop-owner, the DSO passed order on January 20, 2021 holding that R 5 is guilty of breach of 18(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 and, therefore, was liable for action, as contemplated under Clause 3(4) of the said Order.

 

The R-3 has recorded that the R-5 was guilty of misappropriation of wheat to the extent of 22.6 quintals and rice to the extent of 11.36 quintals. Based on the findings, the respondent-3 ordered forfeiture of the security deposit, cancellation of authorisation of his fair price shop and recovery of cost of wheat, rice and pulses, as per prevailing market value. The said order passed by the District Supply Officer on January 20, 2021 was assailed by the shop-owner by filing revision under Clause 24 of the Order of 1975. The same revision was dismissed by the Deputy commissioner (Supply), Amravati Division (Respondent-2) has confirmed the findings of fact with respect to variation in quantities as also other non-compliances with respect to display of signboards while dismissing the revision by the order passed on April 20, 2021. The shop-owner challenged these two orders by filing second revision under Clause 24 of the Order of 1975.

 

The Minister partly allowed the second revision. He quashed and set aside the orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3 and ordered fresh inspection of records of the respondent-5, the shop-owner, in order to ascertain veracity of allegation of misappropriation of food-grains. The Minister had also directed the authorities to record statements of at least 25% of Cardholders attached to the fair price shop of the respondent-5. It was directed that appropriate decision would be taken in the matter after completion of the said exercise. The Minister directed the restoration of the authorisation of the said shop. This order of the Minister has been challenged by the petitioners/Original complainants through this petition. In the case of Vishvas v. The Ministry of Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection) and others in Civil Appeal No. 5605-5606 of 2023,a preliminary objection was raised with respect to locus of the petitioner therein, to challenge the order of the Minister in review under Clause 24(2) of the Order of 1975. The petitioner in the said case was the original Complainant.

 

This objection was rejected on the basis of an earlier judgement reported in (2012)1 All MR 150 in support of the contention that the petition at the behest of the original complainant was not maintainable. It is held that ratio of the said judgement will not be applicable to a petition arising out of the orders passed under Clause 24 of the Order of 1975. According to the HC, perusal of the impugned order passed by the Minister disclose that the Minister has not recorded a positive finding that the findings recorded by the respondent-3 or R-2. are incorrect or unsustainable. The Minister has recorded that the R-5 was running a fair price shop in a tribal area for around 20 years without any complaint in the past. Thereafter, the Minister has recorded that out of 269 Cardholders, 221 stated during the enquiry that they had no grievance against the shop-owner. Having held so, the Minister has recorded that the findings recorded by the authorities in the orders impugned before him also should not be ignored. The Minister has directed that fresh inquiry be held in the matter. Clause 24(1) of the Order of 1975 provides that revisional powers under the said provision can be exercised in order to arrive at satisfaction in respect of legality or propriety of impugned and regularity of proceeding, in which the order is passed.

 

The scope of revision is limited. A Revision l Authority can set aside the impugned order only after recording positive finding as regards legality or propriety of the impugned order or any adverse finding with respect to regularity of proceedings, in which the impugned order was passed. The Revisional Authority cannot act as if it is the first Authority. In this case the Minister has not recorded any positive finding that the findings of the DSO and Deputy Commissioner were improper or illegal. Likewise he has not recorded any adverse finding with respect to regularity of proceedings, in which impugned orders were passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3. In the opinion of the Court, the matter needs to be remanded to the Minister to decide the case afresh.

 

The High Court has directed that the Minister, while considering the case fresh, must record positive findings with respect to allegations of misappropriation of food-grains on which the DSO passed the cancellation order regarding the shop. The High Court has expressed hope that after remand, the Minister would reconsider the case expeditiously and preferably before May 31, 2026 and till adjudication of revision on merits, the respondent-5 shall continue to run the fair price shop, if there is no other adverse order or legal impediment in that regard.