← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1114/2019disposed offdismissed for default

Shankar Ramrao Devkate v. The Minister Food And Civil Supply Department And Others

2019-01-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil P. Deshmukh2 pages

1 Writ Petition No. 1114/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

B ENCH AT AURANGABAD

13. WRIT PETITION NO.1114 OF 2019 Shankar Ramrao Deokate age 47 years occupation agriculture R/o Vilegaon Taluka Ahmedpur District Latur.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

1.

The Minister, Food and Civil Supply Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2.

The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Taluka and Dist. Aurangabad 3.

The District Supply Officer, Latur Taluka and District Latur 4.

The Tahsildar/Naib Tahsildar (Supply), Ahmedpur Dist. Latur.

5.

Mrs. Jyoti Ashok Salunke, age adult occupation business (Fair Price shop) R/o Vilegaon Taluka Ahmedpur District Latur.

...Respondents

Mr. Avinash A. Khande, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar,Asstt.Govt.Pleader for respondents No.1 to4. CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 28th January, 2019 ORDER:

1.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 to 4. 2.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that upon a

2 Writ Petition No. 1114/2019 complaint of petitioner and others, District Supply Officer had suspended the licence of respondent No.5. The same had been challenged by petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. However, Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad,instead of enhancing punishment, had set aside suspension of the licence of respondent No.5 directing institution of inquiry.

3.

Aggrieved thereby, petitioner had been before respondent No.1 in revision and respondent No.1 has reinstated order of District Supply Officer, and also had endorsed order of District Supply Officer to the extent of causing inquiry. Said order has been passed in February 2018, petition has been moved in July 2018 and had been circulated in January 2019. Going by the orders passed, it does not appear that this is a petition where meddlesome approach is required under the discretionary powers of this court. The writ petition is, therefore, not entertained and is disposed of.

4.

Further proceedings may take place expeditiously as observed under orders passed by respondent No.1. ( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE.

Madkar