Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad quashed the order of the Hon’ble Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department that had condoned a nine-year delay and restored the license of a fair price shop dealer. The Court held that condonation of such an inordinate delay without recording satisfaction of reasonable explanation is impermissible. Further, the Court found that deciding the application for condonation of delay and the revision petition simultaneously was contrary to law. The matter was remanded back to the Minister with directions to decide the delay condonation application afresh, with cogent reasons, after granting both parties an opportunity of hearing.
Facts
The dispute arose from the cancellation of a fair price shop license of a dealer in Nanded following multiple complaints from cardholders. The Sub-Divisional Officer canceled the license in 2000, which was confirmed in 2003 by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply). Meanwhile, the cardholders were shifted to the petitioner’s shop in the same taluka.
The dealer challenged these orders before the Minister in a revision petition. In 2009, the Minister allowed the revision, imposed a fine, and restored the license. The petitioner challenged this before the High Court, contending that the revision was hopelessly time-barred. The High Court, in 2010, held that the petitioner had locus standi and set aside the Minister’s order, directing that the revision could be considered only if an application for condonation of delay was filed.
The dealer’s Letters Patent Appeal against that order was later withdrawn in 2019. Subsequently, the dealer filed a delay condonation application for nearly nine years. In December 2022, the Minister again allowed the revision, condoned the delay without recording reasons, and restored the license, leading to this writ petition by the competing fair price shop dealer.
Issues
- Whether the Minister could condone a delay of nearly nine years under Clause 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975.
- Whether condonation of delay without recording satisfaction of reasonable explanation was sustainable.
- Whether the Minister could simultaneously decide the delay condonation application and the revision petition on merits.
- Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the Minister’s order.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the revision was hopelessly barred by limitation under Clause 24 of the 1975 Order, which prescribes a 30-day limitation period and does not empower the Minister to condone delays beyond that limit. Even assuming such power existed, the Minister had failed to record any reasons while condoning an inordinate delay of nine years.
The petitioner argued that the law mandates satisfaction regarding the reasonableness of the explanation for delay, which was absent in the impugned order. It was further contended that the Minister erred in deciding the condonation application and the revision on merits simultaneously, thereby depriving the petitioner of the right to challenge the condonation order separately before a higher forum.
Reliance was placed on Gautam Kathalu Hiwale v. State of Maharashtra (2019), where the High Court held that the Minister has no power to condone delay beyond 30 days under Clause 24. The petitioner also cited P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556, where the Supreme Court ruled that condonation of delay without recording satisfaction about the explanation being reasonable or satisfactory is impermissible.
Respondent’s Arguments
The contesting respondent argued that the petitioner lacked locus standi, as he was not directly aggrieved by the Minister’s order but only a beneficiary of cardholders being temporarily diverted to his shop after cancellation of the other dealer’s license. Reliance was placed on Superintendent Engineer, Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Excise and Taxation Officer (2019 SC) and Poonam v. State of U.P. (2016) 2 SCC 779, to argue that a third party cannot claim standing unless directly affected.
It was further argued that the Minister had the discretion to condone the delay in the interest of justice and that the license was rightly restored, subject to recovery of dues and imposition of fine.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Clause 24 of the 1975 Order, which permits revision within 30 days but is silent on condonation of delay. The Court noted that even if some discretion to condone delay is assumed, the exercise of such power must satisfy the legal requirement of recording reasons that demonstrate the delay was justified.
The Court emphasized that condonation of an extraordinary delay of nine years requires much stricter scrutiny than shorter delays. The failure to give any reasons amounted to a violation of settled legal principles. Further, by deciding the condonation application and the revision petition together, the Minister deprived the petitioner of the statutory right to challenge condonation separately, which is impermissible in law.
Precedent Analysis
- P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 – The Supreme Court held that recording satisfaction about reasonableness of explanation for delay is mandatory. Orders condoning delay without reasons are unsustainable. Applied here, the Minister’s order failed this test.
- Shankar Ramrao Rangnekar v. Narayan Sakharam Sawant (2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 706) – The Bombay High Court held that deciding condonation of delay and merits of the main proceeding together is erroneous. Applied here, the Minister’s approach was legally flawed.
- Gautam Kathalu Hiwale v. State of Maharashtra (2019) – The Bombay High Court held that Clause 24 of the 1975 Order does not confer power to condone delay beyond 30 days. This precedent raised a serious jurisdictional question regarding the Minister’s order.
- Superintendent Engineer, Dehar Power House Circle (2019 SC) and Poonam v. State of U.P. (2016) 2 SCC 779) – These were cited by the respondent to challenge petitioner’s locus standi. However, the Court found that locus standi had already been decided in earlier litigation, which attained finality, making these arguments inapplicable.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the Minister’s order suffered from two fatal defects:
- First, condonation of a nine-year delay without recording reasons violated binding Supreme Court precedent.
- Second, deciding the condonation application and the revision petition together was impermissible and prejudicial to the petitioner’s rights.
On locus standi, the Court held that the issue had already been decided in earlier rounds of litigation and had attained finality. The respondent was estopped from raising it again under the doctrine of acquiescence.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the Minister’s order and remanded the matter back with directions to decide the delay condonation application afresh by giving cogent reasons and affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Conclusion
The writ petition was partly allowed. The Minister’s order dated 08.12.2022 restoring the license of the fair price shop dealer was quashed. The Minister was directed to reconsider the application for condonation of delay within twelve weeks, after granting an opportunity of hearing to both sides and by recording detailed reasons. All substantive issues between the parties were kept open.
Implications
This ruling underscores that delay condonation is not a mere formality—it requires strict judicial scrutiny, especially where delay is excessive. It also affirms that deciding condonation and merits simultaneously is procedurally flawed. The judgment strengthens accountability of quasi-judicial authorities and ensures that parties affected by administrative decisions are not deprived of their legal remedies. For fair price shop disputes, it clarifies that restoration of license after long delay cannot be mechanically ordered.
FAQs
Q1. Can authorities condone a delay of nine years in revision proceedings under the 1975 Order?
The High Court held that even if such power exists, condonation must be supported by cogent reasons showing the delay is satisfactorily explained. Without such reasons, condonation is impermissible.
Q2. Can condonation of delay and the revision petition be decided together?
No. The Court held that deciding both simultaneously deprives the aggrieved party of their right to challenge the condonation order separately. Authorities must first decide delay condonation, then proceed to merits.
Q3. Was locus standi of the petitioner in this case disputed?
Yes, but the Court clarified that locus standi had already been upheld in earlier litigation and attained finality. The respondent could not raise it again.