-: 1 :- wp-3279/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3279 OF 2010 Maruti Khandu Kambale. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. S. Suryawanshi for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. J. K. Jadhav for respondent nos. 4. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : August 11, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Petition pertains to the allotment of ration shop. Respondent no.3 invited applications for allotment of ration shop located at Arey colony, Goregaon (East). In all 9 applications, including the applications of petitioner and respondent no. 4, were received. Respondent no.3 after scrutinising the applications and considering the relevant Government policy allotted the said ratio shop to respondent no.4. This order came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing revision before the Minister. By the impugned order, the Minister has confirmed the order passed by respondent no.3. 2. Respondent no.4 is a Mahila Bachat Gat. The petitioner claims to be handicap person. The policy of the Government is reflected in G.R. dated 3rd November 2007, a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit-1 to the affidavit-in-reply of respondent no.4. Under the said policy, topmost srp -: 2 :- wp-3279/10 priority is given to the Mahila Bachat Gat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Bachat Gat is required to be formed by 20 persons and so far as respondent no.4 is concerned, there are 13 persons only and moreover they are related to each other. The petitioner, however, could not point out any policy in support of his contention that 20 persons are required to form a Bachat Gat. Respondent no.4 Bachat Gat is in fact registered with the competent authority. Therefore, this ground is without any substance. 3. So far as the petitioner’s objection that members of respondent no. 4 Bachat Gat are from one family and they are related to each other is concerned, I find that same is partly correct inasmuch as out of 13 persons, 4 persons are shown to be residing in same accommodation. However, that by itself will not be sufficient ground to refuse the allotment of ration shop to respondent no.4. Both the Authorities below have concurrently held that respondent no.4 is eligible for allotment of ration shop. I do not find any error in the impugned order, calling upon me to interfere with the same in extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)