DEVANAND VISHWANATH SHIRODKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners in these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenge the action of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of alloting a fair price shop to the respondent No. 3-Sumati Shambu Palyankar.

(2.) A notice was published by the respondent No. 1, inviting applications from educated unemployed for grant of a fair price shop. Devanand Shirodkar, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 50, of 1991, filed an application on October 4, 1990, for allotment of the shop, setting out his qualifications and also informing that he had been registered at the Regional Employment Exchange for four years and also indicated the premises where he proposed to set up the fair price shop. Original guide lines were laid down under the letter of the under Secretary dated 13th May, 1987, but the perference mentioned therein was modified and the class of educated unemployed was given first preference. The respondent No. 3 did not belong to the categories to which preference was to be given and belonged to the last residual category. She had been allotted a bakery licence as a widow of a freedom fighter. According to the petitioner, she had also three bar licences-one in her own name, other in the name of her deceased husband and the third, in the name of her son. She is also receiving the pension as the widow of a deceased freedom fighter and Ex-MLA. The petitioners contention was that it was not legally open to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to depart from the criteria and the order of preference prescribed and to allot the fair price shop in an arbitrary manner to the respondent No. 3. Devanand Malwankar, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 62 of 1991, contended that he had furnished with his application for the allotment of fair price shop, his bio-data and also offered to furnish subsequantly the registration number in the Employment Exchange, and it was furnished later. Contending that he was also entitled to be considered for allotment of the fair price shop, because he belonged to the category of the educated unemployed, he also challenges the allotment of the shop to the respondent No. 3.

(3.) BY the returns filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it was contended that the interested parties, including educated unemployed with reasonable business experience, were to apply for allotment of the fair price shop, but petitioner Shirodkar was ineligible as he was working as an apprentice, and as the respondent No. 3 was found more suitable, the shop come to be alloted to her. With regard to petitioner Malwankar, it was urged that he did not produce his employment registration details and he could not, therefore, be considered as an educated unemployed. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not aware of the other activities of the respondent No. 3. Petitioner Malwankar filed a rejoinder contending that he had furnished his registration number on the rolls of the Employment Exchange, to the Civil Supplies Inspector of the Sub Station, and he was never told that his application could not be considered because it was incomplete.