SURYAKANT GOVINDRAO SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was one of the applicants who had applied pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for allotting the fair price shops. The 3rd respondent, after considering all the applications, was pleased to allot fair price shops in favour of the petitioner herein and one Shri. Vechu Shripatsing Chavan. Their applications were found to comply with all the necessary requirements. The order notes that the allotment of authorization in favour of Vechu Shripatsing Chavan is subject to his surrendering his kerosene licence. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 aggrieved by the selection, preferred revision applications before the Hon'ble Minister, Food and civil Supply Department. The Revisional Authority noted that the order of respondent No. 3 awarding shops to petitioner and respondent No. 4 was within jurisdiction. Then, however, proceeded to hold that the applications by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were also in order and that the proposed area is an industrial area, and there is possibility of increase in the population and units and consequently decided to grant authorised ration shops to the applicant Nos. 1 and 2, one each. The order in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 was maintained. It transpires that the respondent No. 4 gave up ration shop and preferred to retain the kerosene licence.

(2.) As of 1-2-1999 the allotment was as under :-

(3.) At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the petitioner the learned counsel contends that the action of respondent No. 1 in allotting two additional fair price shops to the area is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as there were no units which could have been allotted considering the minimum that had to be allotted in favour of the fair price shop. It is submitted that the action of respondent No. 2 in exercise of powers awarding more than two shops was without jurisdiction. No reply has been filed by respondents No. 5 and 6. However, an affidavit has been filed by Sambhaji Bhimaji Zaware, Deputy controller of Rationing. It is pointed out that the advertisement was issued on 19-3-1996 for 350 rationing shops. In the instant case, the matter was covered by item No. 554. Pursuant to the advertisement 11 applications were received and the Controller of Rationing decided to allot ration shops in favour of petitioner and respondent No. 4. The Regional Officer, it is pointed out, recommended the names of petitioner and respondent No. 4 and that the names of respondent No. 5 and 6 were not recommended. Insofar as Vechu Shripatsingh Chavan it has been submitted that the Controller of Rationing, though had granted him a fair price shop, the unit position was not adequate and hence he was not in a position to run the shop. It was in these circumstances, respondent No. 2 allowed respondent no. 4 to run his original kerosene depot.