Sunil Balajirao Atanure v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

923 WP.4131.18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

923 WRIT PETITION NO. 4131 OF 2018 SUNIL BALAJIRAO ATANURE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A. M. Kulkarni. AGP for Respondent / State: Mr. V. S. Badakh. Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Ashish B. Shinde. ...

CORAM :

V. L. ACHLIYA, J.

DATE :

24th April, 2018.

ORDER:

.

Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner, the learned counsel for Respondent - Caveator and the learned AGP for State. Perused the impugned order.

In short, it is the grievance of the Petitioner that though the Respondent No.2 has observed that no proper inquiry was conducted before cancelling the licence of the Petitioner to run the fair price shop and referred back the matter for conducting fresh inquiry by the District Food Supply Officer, Nanded with certain directions, still directed that the card holders of the Petitioner's ration shop be attached to other ration shop.

923 WP.4131.18.odt I am of the view that the order passed by Respondent No.2 cannot be termed as perverse. The order of attaching the card holders of Petitioner's ration shop to another shop is an interim arrangement made to avoid inconvenience being caused to the ration card holders.

In this view, the impugned order calls for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I am therefore, not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is dismissed. However, Respondent No.4 i.e. District Food Supply Officer, Nanded is directed to conduct the inquiry as expeditiously as possible and then pass necessary orders within 12 weeks from the date of passing of this order.

Petition stands dismissed in above terms.

[ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ] ndm