1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2287 OF 2002 Santosh Ramchandra Shinde ) Gajanan Stores, Shop No.15/3, ) Kamraj Nagar, Highway Road, ) Ghatkopar, ) Mumbai ).Petitioner V/s. 1. The State of Maharashtra, ) through Secretary, Food and Civil ) Supplies Department, Mantralaya, ) Mumbai ) ) 2. The Hon'ble State Minister, ) Food and Civil Supplies ) Department, Mantralaya, ) Mumbai ) ) 3. The Controller of Rationing, ) Churchgate, ) Mumbai  20 ) ) 4. Smt.Sadhana Sudhakar Nikam, ) C.E.M  21, Kamrajnagar, ) Sultana Kirana Stores, ) Highway Road, Ghatkopar(E), ) Mumbai ) ) 5. H. Reheman Abdul Majid Khan ) residing at Kamrajnagar, ) Ghatkopar, ) Mumbai ) ) 6. Ramanand Fulchand Gupta ) Near Saibaba Mandir, ) residing at Kamrajnagar, ) 2 Ghatkopar, ) Mumbai ) ) 7. Smt.Chhaya Naresh Rajbhoi, ) Shankarnagar, Saimandir, ) V.N.Marg, Ghatkopar (E), ) Mumbai ).Respondents Mr.P.A.Pol, Advocate, for the petitioner None for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State Mr.Bipin Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent No.5 Mr.Mukesh V. Aiya, Advocate, for the respondent No.6 CORAM : P. B. MAJMUDAR R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 2ND JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.M.SAVANT, J.) . This Writ Petition takes exception to the Order dated 27th June, 2002, insofar as it grants additional ration shops to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein. 2. The facts necessary to be cited for a decision in the above Writ Petition are stated thus:- 3 The respondent No.3, who is the Controller of Rationing, issued an advertisement on 25th June, 2001, for Item No. 155/201 namely Ration Shop for the area situated at Kamraj Nagar, Chembur, Bombay. The last date for submission of applications was dated 30th July, 2001. The petitioner, who claims to be an educated unemployed person applied for the said Ration Shop, as also the respondent Nos.2 to 6. The State Government for consideration of such applications has fixed priorities for various categories of applicants. Insofar as the educated unemployed persons are concerned, they fall in Category  I of the said priorities fixed by the State Government. 3. On consideration of the applications of the various applicants, the respondent No.3 by Allotment Letter dated 30th March, 2002, alloted the said Ration Shop to the petitioner. The petitioner in terms of the said Allotment Letter was entitled to start the Ration Shop within 30 days of 4 the said allotment. Aggrieved by the allotment of the Ration Shop to the petitioner, the respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein filed a Revision Application invoking Clause 30 of the Maharashtra Food Grain Rationing Order (Second) 1966. The said Revision Application was heard by the then Hon'ble Minister of State for Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection of the State Government. The Revisional Authority confirmed the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, however, came to a conclusion that the respondent Nos.4 to 7, who fall in the various categories mentioning in the said impugned Order were also entitled to allotment and therefore, directed the allotment of four additional Ration Shops for the area in question to the respondent Nos.4 to 7 and the total units available in the said area were distributed amongst five shops i.e. the petitioner and the four respondents herein on equal basis. 4. It would be relevant at this stage to note 5 that the State Government by Government Resolution dated 9th June, 2000, has also fixed for Mumbai and Thane area the minimum and maximum units on the basis of which the allotment is made of a Ration Shop in a particular area. The minimum units fixed are 3000 and the maximum units fixed are 8000. It would also be relevant to note that by communication/letter dated 7th May, 1999, the Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department informed the Controller of Rationing that only one ration shop should be alloted under one item number. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 7. However, we regret to note that the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 is absent. On behalf of the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 to 7, contentions are sought to be raised on the viability of each of their shops. Though, it is contended by the learned 6 counsel for the petitioner that at the time when the allotment was made, only 627 units were available with him. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 that the units available today are much more, and in any event, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have no objection, if 3000 units are made available to the petitioner without disturbing them. It is further contended on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 that their allotment is of the year 2002 and since they are running the said shops, they should not be disturbed at this point of time after a period of seven years. On behalf of the petitioner reliance is placed on an unreported Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.5091 of 2003 in the matter of Kum.Sushama Kashinath Boir Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors in support of the submission that in the revisional jurisdiction, additional shops could not have been alloted. The Division Bench in an identical fact situation considering the communication/letter dated 7th May, 7 1999 and the Government Resolution dated 9th June, 2000, has held that the revisional powers under Regulation 30 cannot be invoked to grant additional shops to other applicants, if the units are more than 3000 but less than 8000 it is only when there is an excess number that it would be open for the controlling authority to direct opening of a new shop but the same can only be after following the procedure i.e. issue of advertisement. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 7 has relied upon unreported Judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in Writ Petition No.2246 of 1998 dated 22nd March, 2005 and in Writ Petition No.850 of 2001 dated 3rd May, 2001, in support of his submission that the petitioner can have right only to the extent of 3000 units and that since the respondents are running their shops since last seven years, they should not be disturbed. In re-joinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 8 Judgment in Writ Petition No.2246 of 1998 has been considered in the said unreported Judgment in Writ Petition No.5091 of 2003, which Judgment is later in point of time being dated 4th April, 2005. The Division Bench in Writ Petition No.2246 of 1998 considered the Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.850 of 2001 and has held that the Revisional Authority could not grant additional shop in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. However, the Division Bench in view of the fact that the advertisement in that case was issued on 19th March, 1996, and at the relevant time there seem to be a lacuna in the matter of granting of more than one shop and the minimum number of units, did not deem it fit to interfere with the order granting additional shop. 7. In view of the fact that this Court has held that whilst exercising revisional jurisdiction, it is not open for the authority to 9 grant additional shops even if there are excess units. In our view, insofar as the allotment of shops to the respondent Nos.4 to 7 is concerned, the said decision is required to be re-considered afresh by the revisional authority. 8. It would be significant to note that the instant case is not a case where the successful applicant has more than 3000 units. In fact, the revisional authority has not alloted shops to the respondent Nos.4 to 7 on that ground. In our view, therefore, remand is also necessary in view of the averment of the petitioner that he has only about 627 units which fact has not been controverted by any of the respondents by filing an Affidavit. The question, therefore, would also arise as regards viability of the shop of the petitioner as the State itself has fixed minimum of 3000 units and maximum 8000 units. On remand, the Revisional Authority would re-consider the issue as regards the allotment of shops to the respondent Nos.4 to 7 10 in the light of pronouncement of this Court in Writ Petition No.5091 of 2003 and Writ Petition No.2623 of 2003. The Revisional Authority may also consider the Judgment cited on behalf of the respondents (supra). The impugned Order dated 27th June, 2002, insofar as it directs allotment of shops to the respondent Nos.2 to 6 is, therefore, quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Revisional Authority for a decision afresh on the said issue. However, since the respondents herein are already running their ration shops since last seven years, the Revisional Authority to hear the concerned parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months of the intimation of this order to it. In the event, of the Authority coming to a conclusion that the respondent Nos.4 to 7 are not entitled to the allotment of any Ration Shop, the said order would not be implemented for a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the said order. The order of the Revisional 11 Authority to be sent to the parties forthwith. It is made clear that insofar as the allotment of the shops to the respondent Nos.4 to 7 is concerned, the contentions of the respective parties are explicitly kept open. The above Writ Petition is allowed by making the rule absolute to the aforesaid extent. 9. Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. ( R.M.SAVANT. J.) ( P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.)