Nandabodhi Magas Vargiya Grahak vs State of Maharashtra

S.S. Shinde, J.—This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 23rd January, 2013 passed by Respondent No.2 in the Case of oSve&1012@iz0dz0 236@uk0iq0@21 partly allowing the Revision filed by Respondent No.5 herein and setting aside the order dated 17th April, 2012 passed by Respondent No.3 and order dated 16th June, 2011 passed by respondent No.4 and restoring the Fair Price Shop licence in favour of Respondent No.5.

It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is a Magas Vargiya Grahak Sahakari Sanstha registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act,1960 and was running three Fair Price Shop Nos. 73, 77 and 78 in Aurangabad District at different places. In the year 1982, the petitioner Society went into liquidation and Administrator was appointed. Therefore, Fair Price Shop Nos.73, 77 and 78 were given for running to the Salesman of the said Sanstha and Shop No.77 was given to Respondent No.5, who was also one of the Salesman of said Sanstha. It is further case of the petitioner, since the year 1982 the petitioner Sanstha is in liquidation. Thereafter, Respondent No.5 in collusion with the then Chairman of said Sanstha prepared false record to show that, Resolution is passed on 11th April, 1984 thereby, shop No.77 was allotted by the said Society in his favour. The District Deputy Register, Co Operative Societies, Aurangabad by his order dated 1st September, 2003 withdrew the liquidation and handed over the affairs of said Society to its Managing Committee. Thereafter, on 29th September, 2003, the petitioner Sanstha filed an application before the Additional Collector, Aurangabad to restore the Fair Price Shop Nos. 73, 77 and 78 to it however, respondent No.4 by his order dated 7th November, 2011 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Revision Application before Respondent No.3, who by his order dated 19th January, 2004 directed respondent No.4 to take steps for restoring said shops to the petitioner Society. It is further case of the petitioner that, thereafter, respondent No.5 instituted Regular Civil Suit No.238 Of 2004 in the Civil Court, Senior Division, Aurangabad for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner Society from dispossessing him from Shop No.77 and inter alia, filed an application Exh.No.5 for grant of temporary injunction.

It is case of the petitioner that, respondent No.2 i.e. the Hon''ble Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai by his order dated 18th August, 2004 allowed Revision Application No.1604/1168/Pra-Kra-837/21 and directed the authorities to restore the licenses of Fair Price Shop Nos. 73, 77 and 78 in favour of the petitioner Society. It is further case of the petitioner that, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad by his order dated 4th February, 2005 temporarily restrained the petitioner Society from dispossessing respondent No.5 from Shop No.77. It is further case of the petitioner, though respondent No.2 passed an order directing restoration of said shops with petitioner Society, still kerosene quote was not released, therefore, the petitioner Society filed an application before respondent No.4 however, Dist.Supply Officer / Resp.No.4 rejected said application on 9th June, 2005. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner Society filed Revision Petition before respondent No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.2 allowed said Revision Petition on 22nd August, 2005 and directed to attach the kerosene licence in favour of petitioner Society and further to release kerosene quota accordingly. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22nd August, 2005, passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.5 filed Writ Petition No.6705 Of 2005 in this Court on 19th September, 2005. This Court admitted said Writ Petition and on 7th July, 2006 passed interim order and, thereby, stayed the order dated 22nd August, 2005 passed by respondent No.2.

It is further case of the petitioner that, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad dismissed Regular Civil Suit No.238/05 instituted by respondent No.5. On 14th February, 2011, the petitioner Society filed an application with Respondent No.4 requesting him to allot the quota of food grains as Civil Suit filed by respondent No.5 came to be dismissed. Thereafter, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the order passed by learned C.J.S.D., Aurangabad, respondent No.5 preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.102 Of 2011 in the District Court, Aurangabad. Subsequently, on 21st November, 2011 respondent No.5 filed withdrawal pursis and withdrew said Regular Civil Appeal.

It is further case of the petitioner that, the Central Vigilance Committee carried out the inspection of Fair Price Shop No.77 run by respondent No.5 during the period from 28th December, 2010 to 5th January, 2011 and submitted its detailed report showing various illegalities, irregularities, discrepancies and malpractices on the part of Respondent No.5. Acting upon the said report, respondent No.4 issued notice to respondent No.5 on 2nd June, 2011 and called his explanation in respect of illegalities and malpractice shown in the report submitted by the C.V.C. On 15th June, 2011 respondent No.5 submitted his reply to the notice issued by respondent No.4 upon which, respondent No.4 by his order dated 16th June, 2011 cancelled the licence of Shop No.77. Thereafter, on 11th July, 2011 petitioner Society made an application to respondent No.4 to resume supply of food grains in favour of the Society. It is specific case of the petitioner Society that, that time, it was not aware about the order passed by Dist. Supply Officer cancelling the licnece of the petitioner Society. On 28th July, 2011 petitioner Society got the knowledge of order dated 16th June, 2011 passed by the Dist.Supply Officer. Therefore, it filed Revision No.308 Of 2011 before respondent No.3. Respondent No.5 also filed Revision No.317 Of 2011 on 3rd August, 2011. Respondent No.3 by his order dated 17th April, 2012 allowed Revision No.308 Of 2011 filed by the Petitioner Society and dismissed Revision No.317 Of 2011 filed by respondent No.5 and specifically directed to restore the licence of Fair Price Shop No.77 in favour of the petitioner Society. Thereafter the petitioner Society made an application to respondent No.4 to take necessary steps in view of the order passed by respondent No.3 for restoring the Fair Price Shop No.77 in its favour. Thereafter, challenging the orders passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, respondent No.5 filed Revision before Respondent No.2 on dated 26th April, 2012. On 30th April, 2012 respondent No.4 / Dist.Supply Officer issued a letter to Food Grains Distribution Officer, Aurangabad to comply with the order passed by Resp No.3. Further, he wrote a letter to Food Grains Distribution Officer on 14th May, 2012 and asked to accept the deposits and renewal fees from the petitioner Society and resume the supply of food grains and kerosene. On 14th May, 2012, the petitioner Society has deposited the renewal fees vide challan. Respondent No.4 on 29th May, 2012 issued authorization letter in favour of the petitioner Society for Fair Price Shop No.77. It is further case of the petitioner that, thereafter in the month of June, 2012, the petitioner Society has lifted the quota of food grains and started its distribution to the Card Holders. Upon getting the knowledge of Revision filed by respondent No.5 on 29th January, 2013, the petitioner Society obtained the copies of order and thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 1080 Of 2013 in this court challenging the order dated 23rd January, 2013 passed by respondent No.2.

It is case of the petitioner Society that, this court vide its order dated 6th February, 2013 passed an interim order directing not to take any action against the petitioner and same is in force till today. This court on 16th April, 2013 disposed of Writ Petition No.1080/2013 thereby, setting aside the order passed by respondent No.2 and restored the Revision to its original stage with specific direction to hear both the Revision/s within a period of eight weeks.

On 12th June, 2013, respondent No.2 partly allowed the Revision bearing No. oSve&1012@iz0dz0 236@uk0iq0@21 and, thereby, set aside the order dated 17th April, 2012 passed by Respondent No.3 and order dated 16th June, 2011 passed by respondent No.4 and directed that, Fair Price Shop licence be restored with Respondent No.5 and by the same order imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- only upon respondent No.5.Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the said order, the petitioner Society has filed present Writ Petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, respondent No.5 was the salesman of the petitioner and in collusion with the then Chairman, he got prepared forged resolution thereby allotting shop No.77 in his favour. It is further submitted that, respondent No.2 i.e. the Hon''ble Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai did not take into consideration the report submitted by C.V.C., where-in serious illegalities, discrepancies and malpractice were fasten to respondent No.5 while running the Fair Price Shop. It is submitted that, respondent No.2 by his order dated 23/01/2013 allowed the Revision bearing No. oSve&1012@iz0dz0 236@uk0iq0@21 and, thereby, set aside the order dated 17th April, 2012 passed by Respondent No.3 and order dated 16th June, 2011 passed by respondent No.4 and restored the Fair Price Shop licence in favour of Respondent No.5 and imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-. At the same time, while passing such order, respondent No.2 specifically observed that, respondent No.5 had committed serious illegalities, discrepancies and malpractice while running the Fair Price Shop. It is submitted that, order dated 23rd January, 2013 passed by Respondent No.2 is contrary to the earlier order dated 18th August, 2004, by which Fair Price Shop No.77 was directed to be restored with the petitioner Society. It is further submitted that, earlier the Hon''ble Minister by his order dated 18th August, 2004 allowed Revision Application No.1604/1168/Pra-Kra-837/21 and directed the authorities to restore the licenses of Fair Price Shop Nos. 73, 77 and 78 in favour of the petitioner Society, therefore, in view of that order, the petitioner Society is entitled to run the Fair Price Shops. It is further submitted that, respondent No.2 has not taken into consideration the Government Resolution dated 12th January, 1991, wherein it has been specifically stated that, if major illegalities, irregularities, discrepancies or malpractice are found/noticed, licence should be cancelled. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Respondent No.2 acted beyond the guidelines issued in the Government Resolution Dated 12/01/1991 and erroneously allowed Revision bearing No. oSve&1012@iz0dz0 236@uk0iq0@21 on 13th January, 2013, which was filed by respondent No.5. It is further submitted that, respondent No.2 ought to have appreciated that, respondent No.5 did not observe the conditions as mentioned in clause No.18(2) of the Essential Commodities Order, 1955. It is further submitted that, respondent No.2 has exercised revisional powers by condoning un-condonable illegalities committed by respondent No.5. He further submitted that, while passing the order, respondent No.5 has totally ignored the various relevant authoritative pronouncements of this High Court as well as Hon''ble Apex Court. It is submitted that, respondent No.2 ought to have taken into consideration illegalities, irregularities and malpractice committed by respondent No.5 while running the Fair Price Shop.

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the exposition in the case of Bapu s/o Jagalu Dhormale & Ors., v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in [2013(4) Maha.L.J.] 812 and submits that, order passed by respondent No.2 is contrary to the object of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the grounds taken in the petition, annexure thereto, provisions of E.C. Act,1955, Maha.Scheduled Commodities (Regulation & Distribution) Order, 1975 and the Judgment of this court in case of Bapu, cited supra and submits that, Petition deserves to be allowed.

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.5. It is submitted that, impugned order is already implemented, in as much as, the challans were issued to replying respondent No.5 directing to deposit some amount consequently, respondent No.5 has already deposited the amount and only lifting of quota of food grains is remained. It is submitted that, petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order dated 16th June, 2011 passed by respondent No.4 because the revision filed by the petitioner was neither maintainable nor said Sanstha is running the shop since last 27 years, as their licence has already been cancelled. It is further submitted that, the District Collector, Aurangabad on 21st September, 1984 had cancelled the licence of the petitioner Society and granted the same in the name of respondent No.5. Said order is not challenged by the petitioner till today. It is submitted that, since the year 1984, there was no any complaint against the replying respondent. The petitioner Society submitted an application on 29th September, 2003 before the Dist.Supply Officer, Aurangabad and admitted that, shop No.77 is already allotted in favour of respondent No.5 in the year 1984. It is further submitted that, petitioner Society has preferred proceeding before Respondent No.2 against the order dated 7th November, 2003 (whereby Resp.No.4 rejected the application of petitioner for restoration of shop.) and in the said proceeding, respondent No.5 was not impleaded as a party through he is directly affected thereby. It is further submitted that, before passing of an order on 18th August, 2004, opportunity of being heard was not given to respondent No.5. It is further submitted that, answering respondent instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 238 Of 2004 in the Civil Court, Sr.Divn., Aurangabad, in which initial protection was granted. However, later-on said Civil Suit was dismissed and being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, respondent No.5 preferred Regular Civil Appeal in the District Court however, he withdrew the same, in view of the fact that jurisdiction of Civil Court is impliedly barred from entertaining the issue involved in the matter.

It is further submitted that, being aggrieved with order dated 22/08/05, passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.5 has filed W.P.No. 6705/05 in this Court where-in interim order was passed by Division Bench of this Court on 7th July, 2006 and order passed by respondent No.2 dated 22nd August, 2005 was stayed. It is further submitted that, during the course of enquiry / visit of C.V.C., some minor defects were found / noticed, which can be cured, therefore, taking into consideration the hardship faced by respondent No.5, respondent No.2 allowed Revision filed by respondent No.5. It is submitted that, respondent No.2 has assigned cogent and plausible reasons in the impugned order, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the order impugned, moreso, when the petitioner Society has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. Lastly, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that, Petition is devoid of any merit, same may be rejected.

Respondent No.4 i.e. the District Supply Officer, Aurangabad has filed his affidavit in reply and stated that, though respondent No.5 was allowed to deposit sum on 21st June, 2013 in the Government account for lifting the food grains however, respondent No.5 in adherence to the statement made before this Court that he will not lift the quota of food grains, has not lifted the quota of food grains, so far. In paragraph No.7, it is stated that, petitioner Society is not entitled to lift the quota of food grains for Fair Price Shop No.77, in view of the order dated 12th June, 2013 passed by respondent No.2. It is stated that, petitioner was allowed to distribute food grains to the card holders of shop No.77 temporarily.

I have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, at length. With their able assistance perused the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto, provisions of Essential Commodities Act, Maha. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation & Distribution) Order, 1975, judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties and also reasons recorded by the Hon''ble Minister while passing the impugned order.

It appears that, during the course of inspection / visit from 28/12/10 to 05/01/11, Central Vigilance Committee found / noticed certain illegalities, irregularities, malpractice committed by respondent No.5 while running the Fair Price Shop No.77. On the basis of report of said Committee, an action was initiated against respondent No.5 by the Dist. Supply Officer, Aurangabad. It appears that, members of C.V.C. during the course of their visit / inspection to shop No.77 as well as during the interaction with beneficiaries attached to said Fair Price Shop, revealed certain discrepancies. I opt to reproduce the report of C.V.C. which read thus :-

FDS dealer - Shaeikh Saleemuddin Sheikh Shamsuddin running this FPS since 1984, who gets the license of FPS under OBC reservation. He had total 1131 cards out of which there were APL - 637, BPL - 313 and AAY - 181.

Upon perusing the stock register and the stock present at the go-down, it was found that, 2Q. of rice was lying unaccounted for. The said stock was said to be for the Mid Day Meal scheme which had been stopped several months ago on account of the closure of the school in which it was being supplied. The dealer claimed that the said stock was to be returned as the school for which it was been allotted had shut down. However, he could not produce any document that accounted for the extra grain present at the FP shop.

The dealer claimed that the APL beneficiaries do not lift PDS rice because of its high price.

The committee found discrepancies in the stock and sale registers maintained by him. In stock register APL wheat balance in the month of September, October and November was 9.46 Quintals, 10.37 and 11.63 respectively, while the allotment of APL wheat to this FPS for these three months was same i.e. 40 Qunitals. This indicated that allotment of APL wheat is given by the authority without considering the Utilization Certificate (Mangni Patra) submitted by the FPS dealer. Correction fluid was used at several vital points in the stock register.

The committee was informed by the FPS dealer that there are no vigilance committees functioning at FPS level which verify the distribution of food-grain. The dealer further informed that he did not receive any sample of PDS food-grain when he lifts PDS food-grain from the State Go-down.

He also informed that, all APL card holders do not lift their PDS rice. However, from his record it was clear that he was receiving entire quota for all the APL beneficiaries attached to the shop. The dealer did not give any correct explanation for what he does with the balance APL Stock.

Interaction with beneficiaries attached to the said FPS revealed the following :-

i. The committee was informed by the FPS dealer that if any beneficiary misses his quota in a month, beneficiary is not entitled to take double quota in the next month.

ii. Many people were getting about 10 kg. each of wheat and rice every month even though they did not possess ration card.

iii. Beneficiaries informed that, it is common knowledge that this FPS dealer diverts food-grain and kerosene in the open market. Those who do not even have a ration card are getting PDS food grain at a higher price.

iv. The dealer misbehaves with poor beneficiaries when they demand quantity of food grain as per prescribes quantity and rates.

Upon careful perusal of the report of C.V.C., it is abundantly clear that, many illegalities, irregularities, malpractice were noticed by the members of C.V.C. during their visit and interaction with the beneficiaries. It further appears that, said Committee had interaction with the beneficiaries attached to said FDS and found that, many people, even though did not possess ration card receiving / getting about 10 kg. of wheat and rice every month, further FPS dealer diverts food-grain and kerosene in the open market to those who do not even possess a ration card are getting PDS food grain, at a higher price moreso, the dealer misbehaves with poor beneficiaries, when they demand quantity of food grain as per prescribes quantity and rates etc.etc.

The Central Vigilance Committee noticed serious irregularities and discrepancies in the Stock Register maintained by respondent No.5. It is evident from perusal of report of C.V.C., reproduced herein-above, that many serious irregularities, malpractice and discrepancies were noticed by the said committee. Therefore, the D.S.O., Aurangabad vide his letter O.No. Purawatha/SDD/CR/1831/1931 on 2nd June, 2011 issued notice to respondent No.5 and called written explanation in respect of report of C.V.C.. Respondent No.5 was supposed to give detailed written explanation by 13th June, 2011. Said notice also indicates that, respondent No.5 was called upon to remain present on 13th June, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. So as to have opportunity to file written explanation. Said letter was annexed with report of C.V.C. It appears that, respondent No.5 herein in response to said notice, put forth his contention before the D.S.O., Aurangabad. Thereafter, Dist. Supply Officer, Aurangabad by his order dated 16th June, 2011 cancelled the authorization / licence to run the Fair Price Shop No.77 and forfeited the deposits kept by respondent No.5. At the same time, in order to protect the interest of Card Holders, said authority directed the Food Distribution Officer, Aurangabad to allow distribution of food grains by another FDS situated in nearby vicinity for the card holders, attached to shop No.77.

Upon perusal of order passed by the Dist.Supply Officer, Aurangabad, it appears that, as many as five charges were levelled. Upon perusal of those charges, it appears that, Charge No.1 speaks that, excess stock of food grain was found in the shop and how such stock is available was not communicated to the concerned authority by respondent No.5. So far as Charge No.2 is concerned, is stated that, there is discrepancies in the sale & stock register maintained by respondent No.5 and while submitting the demand application for APL wheat before concerned officer, fact about remaining of stock was not brought to the notice of concerned officer. Charge No.3 is in respect of frequent use of fluid for corrections in the stock register. Charge No.4 speaks that, at the time of inspection, varieties of food grains are not kept in the shop and last Charge No.5 speaks that, at the time of inspection, the shop owner has stated that, all the APL card holders are not taking the rice but when record seen, revealed that shop owner has lifted the rice for all APL card holders about which the shop owner could not give any satisfactory explanation.

Thus, it appears that, various charges under distinct heads were levelled against respondent No.5 and in particular, not maintaining the register, tampering with the record by using correcting fluid in the stock register appears to be serious in nature. Therefore, the Dist.Supply Officer cancelled the authorization / licence of respondent No.5 to run the Fair Price Shop.

It appears that, respondent No.3 / the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad while considering the Revision filed by respondent No.5 has reproduced the Charges levelled against respondent No.5. It appears that, respective parties were duly represented by their Advocates and thereafter, by a reasoned order, First Revisional Authority has rejected the revision filed by respondent No.5. While rejecting the said Revision, the First Revisional Authority has considered the material placed on record. It appears that, said Revisional Authority has also considered Revision filed by the petitioner and the Revision was allowed and Dist.Supply Officer was directed to register name of the petitioner for running shop No.77.

Respondent No.2 - the Hon''ble Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai while considering 2nd Revision filed by respondent No.5 specifically observed that respondent No.5 had committed serious illegalities, discrepancies and malpractice while running the Fair Price Shop still; by his order dated 23/01/2013 partly allowed the Revision bearing No. oSve&1012@iz0dz0 236@uk0iq0@21 and, thereby, set aside the order dated 17th April, 2012 passed by Respondent No.3 and order dated 16th June, 2011 passed by respondent No.4 and directed that, Fair Price Shop licence be restored with Respondent No.5 and by the same order imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- only upon respondent No.5.

Upon perusal of impugned judgment, it appears said judgment contains in all seven (7) paragraphs, out of which paragraph Nos.1 to 5 contains narration of facts and events involved in the matter. In paragraph No.5, respondent No.2 recorded submission of respondent No.3 and in paragraph No.7, respondent No.2 has adverted to the rival contentions and documents and stated the events, narrated the proposition which emerges from the appreciation of rival contentions and record. On careful perusal of impugned judgment, passed by respondent No.2, it is apparently clear that, Respondent No.2 - the Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai was convinced that, there are discrepancies in the record maintained / run by respondent No.5, therefore, in the impugned judgment it is observed thus :-

"mijksDr foospuko:u oknhP;k nqdku rikl.khe/;s izFken''kZuh fnlwu ;sr vlysY;k nks"kkLro oknhl :0 10]000@& :i;s ngk gtkj Qdr ,o<+k naM d:u rlsp nqdkukph vuker jDdr tIr d:u ek0 eqacbZ mPp U;k;ky;kP;k vkSjaxkckn [kaMihBke/khy ;kfpdk dzekad 9680@2001 e/khy fu.kZ;kP;kvf/ku jkgwu oknhps nqdku iwoZor lq: dj.;kP;k fu"d"kkZizr eh vkyks vkgs0"

Upon careful perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that, respondent No.2 partly allowed the Revision. Respondent No.2 has not assigned single reason why such view is taken by him and how such view can be sustained in the eye of law. By the impugned judgment, revision filed by respondent No.5 was partly allowed by respondent No.2. In clause No.3 of the operative part of the order, respondent No.2 recorded the conclusion that, prima facie it appears that, there are discrepancies in the record / shop run / maintained by respondent No.5. Vide his judgment, respondent No.2 surprisingly set aside the order dated 17th April, 2012 passed by Respondent No.3 and order dated 16th June, 2011 passed by respondent No.4. In clause No.3 of operative part of the Judgment it is observed thus :-

"oknhP;k nqdku rikl.khe/;s izFken''kZuh fnlwu ;sr vlysY;k nks"kkLro oknhl :i;s nks"kkLro oknhl :0 10000@& :i;s ngk gtkj Qdr ,o<+k naM d:u rlsp nqdkukph vuker jDdr tIr d:u ek0 eaqcbZ mPp U;k;ky;kP;k vkSjaxkckn [kaMihBke/khy ;kfpdk dzekad 9680@01 e/khy fu.kZ;kP;k vf/ku jkgwu oknhps nqdku iwoZor lq: dj.;kr ;kos"

In fact, passing of such types of order by respondent No.2 is not only without assigning any cogent and satisfactory reasons but, contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation & Distribution) Order, 1975. As such, impugned judgment and order passed by respondent No.2 allowing Revision partly is contrary to the very object of above noted enactments. It is legal proposition that where a statute or the rules made thereunder provides for an appeal or revision from the order of a subordinate authority and the function to be performed is a quasi-judicial one, the appellate or revisional authority while passing its order must give reasons in its order or, in other words, pass a speaking order. Thus, respondent No.2 was duty bound to record tangible and cogent reasons for upsetting well reasoned orders dated 17th April, 2012 passed by Respondent No.3 and order dated 16th June, 2011 passed by respondent No.4.The necessity of giving reasons flows as a necessary corollary from the rule of law which constitutes one of the basic principles of the Indian Constitutional set-up. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision - taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him.

The object of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is as under :-

The object of the Essential Commodities Act is to provide, in the interest of the general public, for control of production, supply and distribution of trade and commerce in commodities which are specified in the Act to be essential commodities. The power of search and seizure are incidental and supplementary to other powers which are necessary to secure the objects for which the Essential Commodities Act has been passed. The very object of the Essential Commodities Act is to check the inflationary trends in prices and to ensure equitable distribution of essential commodities.

Upon perusal of object of the E.C. Act, 1955, it appears that, respondent No.2 should have paid the attention to the interest of the general public i.e. Card holders and also the persons covered under the various Schemes of the Central as well State Government. The Central Vigilance Committee had noticed serious illegalities, irregularities, discrepancies and malpractice during their visit to the shop run by Respondent No.5. It is difficult to fathom that Respondent No.2 Minister without considering the object of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 and the interest of the general public and card holders, without assigning any reason and by accepting that prima facie there appears to be discrepancies in the record / shop run by respondent No.5, strangely set aside the reasoned order dated 17th April, 2012 passed by Respondent No.3 and order dated 16th June, 2011 passed by respondent No.4, by imposing fine of Rs.10,000/- only and forfeiting the deposits. By the said order, respondent No.2 directed to restore the Fair Price Shop in favour of Respondent No.5. By no stretch of imagination, respondent No.5 who committed irregularities, illegalities, discrepancies and malpractice could have been shown leniency, and rather should have been dealt with rigorously by Respondent No.2, keeping in view the interest of the general public.

Upon considering the case in its entity, there is no manner of doubt that, Respondent No.5 acted contrary to the interest of Card Holders and also tampered with the record maintained in his shop and, therefore, there is no question to show sympathy to him. Whether the petitioner has locus standi or not, makes no difference because once this court noticed the arbitrary exercise of powers by respondent No.2, this court could not go on technicality. It is not in dispute that, said shop was run by the petitioner in the past and, therefore, it is not case of respondent No.5 that petitioner is totally alien to the subject matter involved in the petition.

In the light of the discussion in foregoing paras, impugned order passed by respondent No.2 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, same is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

Upon considering the factual aspects of the matter, legal procedure and other important aspects involved in the matter and way in which the petitioner and respondent No.5 are litigating for their own benefits, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that, the District Supply Officer, Aurangabad to follow due procedure of law and invite applications from eligible persons / N.G.O. to run said Fair Price Shop and allot the same to eligible person, who would look after the interest of all card holders including the beneficiaries under the Central / State government Schemes and work strictly within the four corners of law.