1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8203 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 8203 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 8203 OF 2008 Kum.Jyoti Bhikaji Devli ... Petitioner Versus The Controller of Rationing & Ors. Respondents Mr. S.P.Kanuga i/b. Mrs.Sapna N.Nath, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. V.A.Sonpal, AGP, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATE: 17th December, 2008. DATE: 17th December, 2008. DATE: 17th December, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Minister rejecting her application for a rationing shop. As per the order passed by the Minister, the petitioner was not having actual possession of the premises in which she wanted to open the rationing shop. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits 2 that an agreement of leave and license was executed by her mother for a period of five years, but it was not duly notarized as per the requirements of the standing order of 1994. Due to this reason, her application was rejected. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned AGP, we find that in the advertisement issued for the purpose of grant of rationing shop, it is clearly mentioned that the applicant should be in actual possession of the premises on the date of making application for rationing shop. Condition No.4 specifically requires that if the applicant claims to be in possession on basis of certain document or agrement, that document or agreement should be duly registered or notarized. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that on the date of the application made by the applicant, the lease agreement executed by her mother for a period of five years was not notarized or registered and therefore, it could not be said that she was in actual possession. 4. From the impugned order, it appears that all the three claimants were not found to be qualified and, therefore, the Principal Secretary directed that fresh advertisement be issued calling applications for grant 3 of rationing shop. This order appears to be very fair and in the interest of justice. If the petitioner is having relevant documents now, then certainly she can again participate when the fresh advertisement is issued. 5. Taking into consideration this material, we do not find any fault with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI,J.) (BILAL NAZKI,J.) (BILAL NAZKI,J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)