1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.636 OF 2010 Daiwashala Uttam Mane ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 25th June, 2010 PER COURT : 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, directing respondent No.2 to issue allotment order of the fair price shop at village Naigaon, Taluka Chakur, District Latur as per the recommendation dated 20.2.2007. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent No.2 to allot the fair price shop as per recommendation dated 20.2.2007. 2. It appears that, pursuant to the policy decision of the 2 Government as it existed in the year 2004, applications were invited from several persons for allotment of the licence to open a fair price shop. The petitioner was one of the applicants along with 9 others, who had applied for the same. The resolution came to be passed by the Grampanchayat on 5.12.2006, recommending the name of the petitioner as a suitable candidate for allotment of the fair price shop. The Tahsildar also, by his report, concurred with the resolution of the Grampanchayat and recommended that the petitioner be issued with the licence of a fair price shop. It appears that, thereafter no steps are taken for allotment of the licence or deciding the application of the petitioner. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying that, pursuant to the recommendations of the Tahsildar, the fair price shop be allotted to the petitioner. 3. On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply. Mrs. Gondhalekar, learned A.G.P. on behalf of the respondents has invited our attention to the document marked as Exhibit R-2. The said Exhibit R-2 is a Government Resolution dated 3.11.2007 by which the entire policy in respect of the allotment of the fair price shop licence came to be altered. By virtue of this Government Resolution, henceforth licences for fair price shop and licences for retail sale of the kerosene would be 3 issued to self-help groups. The aforesaid Government Resolution, in terms, cancels the earlier resolution dated 3.1.2006. 4. The petitioner, as pointed by us above, contends that the fair price shop be allotted to him as per the policy which existed when the petitioner had submitted his application. The petitioner also contends that the Government had allotted licence of fair price shop to one person residing at village Hanumantwadi, Taluka Chakur, District Latur disregarding the new policy. Mr. Nagargoje, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is entitled to be judged by the same yardstick which was applied while examining the application of the said person from village Hanumantwadi. Mrs. Gondhalekar, learned A.G.P. points out to us from perusal of the reply that the fair price shop was allotted to one person at village Hanumantwadi, Taluka Chakur, District Latur on 5.10.2005 i.e. much prior to the issuance of the Government Resolution dated 3.11.2007 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any parity on the basis of the said allotment. 5. It is not disputed before us that the application of the petitioner, despite favourable recommendation by the Tahsildar, remained pending. The petitioner also did not choose to approach this Court seeking any directive of this Court for expeditious disposal of his 4 application. Meanwhile, the Government issued the resolution dated 3.11.2007, by which the Government directed that henceforth licences of fair price shop and retail kerosene licence should be issued to the self-help groups. Since the application of the petitioner was not decided, the application of the petitioner would be decided in accordance with the policy/ law as it exists on the date on which the authorities decide the application. The petitioner has no vested right to claim that application be decided in accordance with the law as it stood when the petitioner had submitted his application. 6. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, there is no merit in the petition and the petition deserves to be summarily dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) fmp/wp636.10