-
by sayum
06 July 2026 10:56 AM
"Revisional Authority Must Record Satisfaction on Legality or Propriety – Not Just Order a Re-enquiry Based on Popular Support", In a ruling that sharply clarifies the limits of revisional jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975, the Bombay High Court has quashed the decision of the State Minister for Food and Civil Supplies who had reversed cancellation of a fair price shop’s licence without addressing the core findings of misappropriation.
Justice Rohit W. Joshi, deciding Writ Petition No. 3896 of 2021, held that the Hon’ble Minister exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside detailed findings of foodgrain misappropriation made by the District Supply Officer (DSO) and the Deputy Commissioner without even recording whether those findings were legal, proper, or regular.
"The impugned order suffers from a serious jurisdictional error," Justice Joshi held, noting that the revisional power under Clause 24 of the 1975 Order is not equivalent to an appellate reappraisal.
The Court has remanded the matter back to the Hon’ble Minister with directions to reconsider the case only after recording findings on the key allegation of misappropriation, and ideally before 31 May 2026. Until then, the respondent shopkeeper will continue to operate his shop unless otherwise restrained.
“Merely Saying the Shopkeeper Has 20 Years of Clean Record Is No Answer to Concrete Charges of Misappropriation”
The dispute arose from a complaint by ration cardholders in village Tembli, Taluka Dharni, District Amravati, who accused Respondent No. 5, a fair price shop owner, of misappropriating public food grains. After an enquiry, the District Supply Officer found that the shopkeeper had misappropriated 22.6 quintals of wheat and 11.36 quintals of rice, and also sold a higher quantity of pulses than allotted. Violations regarding the display of signboards and other operational conditions were also recorded.
On 20 January 2021, the DSO cancelled the shop’s authorization, ordered 100% forfeiture of security deposit, and initiated recovery proceedings. This decision was confirmed in revision by the Deputy Commissioner, who reiterated that the irregularities were clearly established.
However, in a second revision, the State Minister quashed both orders and directed a fresh inspection, citing the respondent’s “20 years of clean service in a tribal area” and the fact that 221 out of 369 cardholders had no complaints. The Minister restored the shop’s license pending fresh enquiry.
This decision prompted the original complainants (ration cardholders) to move the High Court, challenging the legality of the Minister’s interference.
“Revisional Power Under Clause 24 is Limited – Minister Must Address Findings, Not Bypass Them”
The High Court stressed that the revisional power under Clause 24(1) of the 1975 Order is not unfettered, and can only be exercised if the Minister is satisfied about the legality, propriety, or irregularity of the earlier proceedings.
“The Hon’ble Minister has not recorded any positive finding that the orders of the DSO and Deputy Commissioner are illegal or improper. Nor has he recorded any irregularity in the procedure. Instead, he has quashed both orders simply on the ground that the shop had no prior complaints and that some cardholders had supported him,” the Court noted.
Justice Joshi made it clear that sympathy based on long service or majority support from cardholders cannot override proven regulatory violations, especially when they pertain to public food grain distribution, which is part of the State’s essential supply system.
“Minister Acted Beyond Jurisdiction – Cannot Function as First Authority or Re-Investigator”
The Court rebuked the State’s contention that the Minister could simply order a fresh enquiry without deciding whether the earlier findings were right or wrong.
“This is not a case where the legality or correctness of the initial orders was dealt with. The Minister simply directed a re-inspection, acting virtually as a first authority. That is not the scope of revision,” the judgment declared.
Further, the Court held that subsequent developments—like the DSO’s letter dated 09 February 2022 claiming there were no recent complaints—cannot cure the defects of the Minister’s original order, which never dealt with the core finding of misappropriation.
“Complainants Have Locus to Challenge Orders Under Distribution Order, 1975”
The Court also settled a key procedural question: whether ration cardholders who filed the original complaint had the right to challenge the Minister’s order.
Rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the shopkeeper’s counsel, the Court held that petitioners had full standing (locus) under Clause 24 of the Distribution Order, 1975. It distinguished this case from judgments under the Licensing Order, 1979, where such locus may not exist.
“The law is clear – complainants have a right to seek judicial review when revisional orders are passed under the 1975 Distribution Order. The Supreme Court’s decision in Vishvas v. The Ministry pertains to appeals under the 1979 Licensing Order and does not apply here,” the Court clarified.
Law Cannot Yield to Popular Opinion or Ministerial Discretion Without Jurisdiction
In a tightly reasoned judgment, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the rule of law in the domain of public distribution, making it clear that administrative discretion cannot displace legal accountability.
“The Minister’s power under Clause 24 must be used to uphold or reject earlier findings based on legality or procedural irregularity—not to seek refuge in cardholders' opinions or the shopkeeper’s past service,” the Court observed.
The order dated 19 July 2021 was thus quashed, and the matter sent back for proper reconsideration, with strict instructions that the allegations of foodgrain misappropriation must be decided on merits before any reinstatement can stand.
Date of Decision: 06 January 2026
