1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2260 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Coram: Naresh H. Patil and Shrihri P. Davare, JJ. Date : 18.11.2010 1. Heard Shri S.S. Jadhvar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Shri V.D.Rakh, learned A.G.P. for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner had participated in the selection process for allotment of fair price shops. The advertisement was issued in the year 2003 and the selection process, according to the petitioner, was completed in the year 2006. According to the petitioner, his name was finalised as proposed allottee for fair price shop. However, in the meantime,, the government passed resolution dated 3.11.2007 laying down policy for allotment of fair 2 price shops to self help groups, including women's self help groups due to which final selection of the petitioner was stalled. The petitioner, therefore, approached this court. 3. Shri S.S.Jadhvar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said policy of allotting fair price shops to self help groups, including women's self help group was adopted in the year 2007, whereas petitioner's selection process had commenced prior to issuance of the government resolution dated 3.11.2007 laying down the said policy and, therefore, petitioner's selection would be affected, if the fair price shop is not allotted to him. 4. Learned counsel Shri S.S.Jadhvar further submitted that the policy decision taken by the government vide its Resolution dated 3.11.2007 suffers from inherent infirmities and is discriminatory in nature as by the said policy decision, competent individuals would be deprived of 3 participating in selection process, if the Government Resolution dated 3.11.2007 is implemented, more particularly in the cases like the present one, where selection process was completed prior to issuance of Government Resolution dated 3.11.2007. 5. Consequent to notice issued, one Mr. Madhukar Nathaji Chavan, Naib Tahsildar (Supply) filed reply on behalf of the Respondents. The deponent has, in paragraph 4 of the reply, stated: "4. In reply to para No.8 of the petition, I say and submit that,t he name of Petitioner was recommended by Gramsabha of village Surdi (Thot), Tq, Beed on 14.02.2006. However, when Gramsabha was going on, due to crowd, quarrels as well as allegations , President of gramsabha cum Sarpanch of village of Surdi (Thot) leave (walk out) from Gramsabha along with other 16 persons, and behind back of President cum Sarpanch, remaining persons have agreed on the name of Petitioner and they recommended Petitioner's name for Fair price shop at village Surdi (Thot), Tq. Beed and the same was reported to competent authority/Sub 4 Divisional Officer, Beed, vide letter dated 23-02-2006 by Tahsildar, Beed. I further say and submit that, during the further process, some complaints were filed by villagers about the legality of Gramsabha and decision taken on dated 14-02-2006. I further say and submit that, Block Development Officer, Beed enquire the above said matter and held that, the Gramsabha dated 14-02-2006 is in absence of President cum Sarpanch is invalid. Due to allegations, quarrels and cross, President cum Sarpanch had leave (left) Gramsabha, and behind back of Presiding group of remaining peoples took decision in respect of recommend petitioner's name for grant of fair price shop. However, Gramsabha dated 14-02-2006 is in absence of President and without coram is not legal. Hence, the same Gramsabha is not treat as Gramsabha. Hence, the decision taken by the group cannot be consider as decision of Gramsabha and is not valid. Hence, Block Development Officer, Beed, vide letter dated 13-04-2006 communicated that, decision taken on 14-02-2006 may not be considered." 6. The learned A.G.P. submitted that the petitioner has no legal or fundamental right to claim licence from the State 5 Government, although he had participated in the selection process and was expecting allotment order. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the selection process of the petitioner was faulty, which has been narrated in the affidavit-in-reply. 7. We have perused the reply filed. In the facts of the case, we do not find that the petitioner has legal or fundamental right to claim allotment of fair price shop in his favour. Admittedly, the State Government, though issued an advertisement in the year 2003, did not take final decision and did not allot fair price shop in favour of any of the applicants, including petitioner. The policy decision was adopted by the State Government by Govt. Resolution dated 3.11.2007 to allot fair price shops to self help groups, including women's self help groups. 8. We have even seen the proceedings in Writ Petition No.698 of 2008 wherein, the petitioners had approached the court praying that they were running fair price shops since 1995 and were also distributing kerosene, although they had no licence to distribute kerosene. From the proceedings of 6 the said petition, we seen the order passed by the the Hon'ble Apex Court on 15.5.2010 in Interim Application No. 90 in Writ Petition (C) No.196 of 2001, wherein it has been observed:- " We have heard learned counsel for the parties. As an interim measure, the state of Maharashtra is permitted to issue licences for fair price shops and Kerosene retail shops to self Help Groups. They may distribute it through Gram Panchayat, Co- operative Society, Women/Co-operative Society run by women, Ex-Army Men Co-operative Society, Handicapped, Widows and greater priority would be given to the Widows of Army men. " 9. Restricting the scope of this petition to the facts of the present case, we find that the petitioner-herein cannot seek right against the State Government to allot fair price shop in his favour just because, according to him, his name was finalised to be proposed allottee. 7 10. On behalf of the Respondents, the deponent of the affidavit in reply, has also raised the contention regarding faulty procedure followed while carrying out selection process and finalising name of the petitioner. 11. In the circumstances, Writ Petition stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) pnd/wp2266.08