(1) WP. 4080.1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 408O OF 1999 Savitribai Mahila Aaudyogik Sahakari Sanstha Limited, at Shirasmani, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon, through its Chairman and/or Secretary .. Petitioner VERSUS 01] The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on the Government Pleader of High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) 02] The Hon'ble State Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai 03] The Commissioner (Supply) Nashik Division, Nashik, Dist. Nashik 04] The Sub Divisional Officer, Amalner Division, Amalner, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon 05] Sou. Ashabai w/o Bhagwan Mali, Age : Major, Occu.: Business, R/o Parola, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon .. Respondents Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, AGP for the respondent-State Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.5 ... (2) WP. 4080.1999 CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1] By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 6.7.1999 passed by the Hon'ble State Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, State of Maharashtra, in revision Application no. 1297/1424/Pra.Kra.6449/23. By that order, the Hon'ble State Minister was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supplies) Nasik and cancelled the order issued in favour of the petitioner for granting of license to run a fair price shop at village Shirsmani, Tq. Parola. 2] The petitioner is a women's industrial co- operative society. The fair price shop was granted in favour of the respondent no.5 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Amalner, having regard to the priority list of eligible persons. The respondent no.5 was running the fair price shop as licensee. The petitioner challenged the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Amalner by filing revision application no. 80 of 1997. The Deputy Commissioner (Supplies) Nashik Division, Nasik was pleased to allow the said revision application. The learned Deputy Commissioner held that the respondent no.5 was not eligible and the license of the fair price shop (3) WP. 4080.1999 ought to have been granted in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.5 preferred revision Application before the Hon'ble State Minister which was allowed by the order impugned. 3] Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned AGP. 4] Question involved in this Petition is as to whether the petitioner is eligible to get the license of the fair price shop in view of the priority list indicated in the Government resolution dated 12.11.1991. The petitioner's contention is that the respondent no.5 was in-eligible because she is not inhabitant of village Shirasmani. It is also contended that the co-operative society of women is having first priority and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to get the license for running of the fair price shop in the village. It is contended that the second revision was not maintainable and the Hon'ble State Minister committed a patent error while entertaining the revision application. On the same lines, argument is advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5] So far as maintainability of second revision application is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in "Parmeshwar Sihoratan Bohara Vs. State of (4) WP. 4080.1999 Maharashtra and anr. 1997(2) Mh.L.J. 252" held that the second revision application before the State Minister is maintainable. It is observed that there is no restriction in clause (24) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975 and as such, the second appeal could be entertained by the State Government. Needless to say in view of such legal position, the technical objection raised on behalf of the petitioner is untenable. 6] So far as the other contentions are concerned, it may be gathered that as per the Government resolution dated 12.11.1991, there are two broad categories as category A and category B. In respect of category A, criterion would be applicable only to the extent of areas covered by Ekatmik Adivasi Vikas Prakalp. Admittedly, village Shirasmani is not covered by the zone of the area under special project. Neither category shown as "B" provides for the priority. It is true that womens consumer co-operative society is shown at serial no. 1 and will have priority over the other claimants. It is pertinent to notice that the petitioner is not the women's "consumer co-operative society" but it is the women's "industrial co-operative society". There is basic difference between the nomenclature of both the societies. It is contended that the petitioner will be covered by entry at serial no.3 which covers (5) WP. 4080.1999 various "Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha". Again, it will have to be stated that the petitioner does not answer the description of Vividh Karyakari Seva Sanstha since it is only industrial co-operative institution. It is not a notified society. 7] Under these circumstances, the petitioner was not entitled to claim higher ranking as per the Government resolution dated 12.11.1991. The denial of the claim of the petitioner is therefore, justified. An argument is advanced to the effect that the respondent no.5 was also not eligible. It is not necessary to examine eligibility of the respondent no.5. There cannot be competition between the two in-eligible persons and that for such a reason the petitioner cannot claim license to run the fair price shop. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present Petition. 8] In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp