Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court quashed the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, which had condoned a delay of nine years in filing a revision and restored the license of Respondent No.7 for running a Fair Price Shop. The Court held that the Minister acted erroneously by condoning such an inordinate delay without recording reasons, and by simultaneously deciding the delay application and revision on merits. The matter was remanded to the Minister to decide the delay condonation application afresh within 12 weeks, after granting an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Facts
- Respondent No.7’s fair price shop license at village Gokunda, Taluka Kinwat, Nanded was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer (05.08.2000) due to complaints from cardholders.
- The Deputy Commissioner (Supply) dismissed his revision (23.06.2003).
- Thereafter, cardholders were diverted to the petitioner’s fair price shop.
- In 2009, Respondent No.7 filed a delayed revision before the Minister, who allowed it (14.10.2009), regularized the license, and imposed a fine.
- The petitioner challenged this in Writ Petition No.8435 of 2009. The High Court (25.01.2010) set aside the Minister’s order, holding petitioner had locus standi, and directed that the revision could only be entertained if delay was condoned by a proper application.
- Respondent No.7’s appeal (LPA No.38 of 2010) was later withdrawn.
- In 2022, after filing a condonation application, the Minister again condoned delay of nearly 9 years and restored the license by imposing a nominal fine of ₹5,000 and directing recovery of ₹80,675. The petitioner challenged this second order.
Issues
- Whether the Minister could condone delay of nearly 9 years in filing revision under Clause 24 of the 1975 Order.
- Whether condonation of delay without assigning cogent reasons is valid.
- Whether the Minister erred in deciding the condonation application and revision simultaneously.
- Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the order.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Clause 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 allows revision only within 30 days; hence, a delay of 9 years could not be condoned.
- Even if condonation were permissible, the Minister did not assign reasons for holding the explanation satisfactory, violating P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556.
- The Minister erred by deciding the delay application and revision simultaneously, depriving petitioner of appellate rights.
- Relied on Gautam Kathalu Hiwale v. State of Maharashtra (WP 2640/2019), where this Court held that delay beyond 30 days cannot be condoned under Clause 24.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Petitioner lacked locus standi since he was only a stop-gap licensee who benefited when Respondent No.7’s license was cancelled.
- Relied on Poonam v. State of U.P. (2016) 2 SCC 779 and Superintending Engineer v. Excise & Taxation Officer (2019 SC) to argue petitioner was not an aggrieved party.
Analysis of the Law
- The Court noted that the Minister failed to record any satisfaction that the explanation for 9 years’ delay was reasonable or satisfactory. Condonation without reasons is impermissible, as held in P.K. Ramachandran (supra).
- It emphasized that deciding condonation and revision simultaneously is procedurally flawed. Such a practice deprives parties of the right to challenge the order on condonation independently before higher forums, as clarified in Shankar Ramrao Rangnekar v. Narayan Sakharam Sawant (2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 706).
- On locus standi, the Court reiterated its earlier ruling in WP 8435/2009 that petitioner had locus standi, a finding that attained finality after Respondent No.7 withdrew his appeal. Thus, the objection was barred by acquiescence.
Precedent Analysis
- P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 – Condonation of delay requires recording satisfaction of reasonable cause.
- Shankar Ramrao Rangnekar v. Narayan Sakharam Sawant (2013 MhLJ 706) – Delay application and merits of revision cannot be decided simultaneously.
- Gautam Kathalu Hiwale v. State of Maharashtra (WP 2640/2019) – Minister lacks power to condone delay beyond 30 days under Clause 24.
- Poonam v. State of U.P. (2016) 2 SCC 779 – Principles on locus standi; distinguished as earlier finding on locus already attained finality.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Minister condoned a 9-year delay without recording satisfaction on sufficiency of explanation, violating settled law.
- He simultaneously decided the delay application and revision, an impermissible course of action that deprived the petitioner of appellate remedy.
- Locus standi objection was untenable, as the High Court had earlier affirmed petitioner’s standing, and Respondent No.7 had accepted this by withdrawing the LPA.
Conclusion
- The High Court quashed the Minister’s order dated 08.12.2022 and the consequential District Supply Officer’s order dated 14.12.2022 regularizing the license.
- Directed the Minister to decide the delay condonation application afresh, with cogent reasons, within 12 weeks.
- All issues of parties kept open for reconsideration.
Implications
This ruling reinforces that administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must record cogent reasons while condoning delay, especially when the delay is inordinate. It also clarifies that applications for condonation of delay and merits of revision must be decided separately to protect the appellate rights of parties. Further, it affirms the doctrine of acquiescence: once locus standi is upheld and accepted, it cannot be re-agitated.