Chandiwal K. U., J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Both the learned Counsel, in the opening of their submissions, accepted that the writ petitions are to be finally heard and disposed of.
(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.
(3.) The elaborate narration, with reference to the communications, correspondence in both the petitions, being identical, it is summarized as under : A fair price shop was alloted to Gorakh Madhukar Gadkar (petitioner in W.P. No. 4760/2009). The Government, having received several complaints of over-lifting of food stuffs earmarked for the persons below poverty line, did not reach the doorsteps of such needy persons, an in-depth inquiry was caused by Tahsildar, Gangapur, in which he found that it was a case of over lifting of food grains; not supplying the same to the card holders; manipulation of the record and consequently, show-cause notices were issued to such 138 license holders of fair price shops. Basically, these are the licenses issued by the Government to the concerned to distribute the food grains, within the parameters of the conditions imposed thereon. It will not have colour of an absolute right to challenge every action of the Competent Authority. It is incumbent upon each of the petitioners to point the order under challenge smacks with illegality; perversity or it has some different sheds, not obviously seen, but latent in its colour. With this, let us proceed to the deal with further factual details.;