1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 300 OF 2009 Shri Nileshkumar Kantaprasad Yadav ) M/s. Maharashtra Trading Abdulvahab ) Chawl No.2, Shop No.5, Natwar Nagar, ) Jogeshwari, Mumbai 400 060. ).. Petitioner. V/s. 1. State of Maharashtra, ) Through the office of the Government) High Court O.S. Mumbai. ) 2. Dy.Controller of Rationing, “D” Zone) Andheri, (East), Mumbai 400 069. ) 3. The Hon’ble Minister of Food & ) Civil Supply, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ) 4. Shri Ramkumar Kadedeen Gupta, ) Raju Grain Stores, Nanaku Pandye ) Chawl, R.K.Singh Marg, ) Andheri, Mumbai. ).. Respondents Mr. S.T.Manek, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Mugdha Jadhav, AGP, for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.C.Singh with Mr. Sandesh D.Patil & Mr. D.R.Shah, Advocates, for respondent No.4. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 9th February, 2010. 2 JUDGMENT : (PER J.H.BHATIA,J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing immediately. 2. The respondent No.2 – Deputy Controller of Rationing, “D” Zone, Andheri (East), Mumbai, issued an advertisement calling applications for allotment of Authorised Ration Shops (ARS) for different areas. Item No.125 of 2008 pertains to Natwar Nagar area of Andheri (East). The petitioner and five others applied for allotment of rationing shop for that area. By order dated 3.10.2008, the respondent No.2 allotted the ARS to respondent No.4, rejecting the applications of the petitioner and others. Revision Application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected on 22.1.2009 by the respondent No.3 – the Minister of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Maharashtra. According to the petitioner, as per the advertisement, the boundaries of Natwar Nagar were shown and the North-East boundary was shown as Tioli Building. According to him, the shop premses in which he proposed to run the ARS is within the boundaries as shown in the advertisement. However, his application was wrongly rejected on the ground that his shop was outside the boundaries. It is contended that without any intimation, the boundaries of the area were changed taking the shop premises 3 of the petitioner outside the boundary. This was against the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the respondent No.4 and his brothers Sangamlal Gupta and Dinesh Gupta are members of the same family and there is common Ration Card for them. Sangamlal Gupta is already running another Authorised Ration Shop No.26-D-172 and as per the Government policy, only one ration shop can be permitted for the members of the same family. He further contended that respondent No.4 has shown the shop premises for the proposed ARS just adjoining the Ration Shop run by his brother Sangamlal Gupta and, according to him, the proposed premises of respondent No.4 are, in fact, outside the boundary fixed by respondent No.2. These aspects were not considered by respondent No.2 while allotting the shop to the respondent No.4 nor they were considered by the respondent No.3. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to quash the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and to issue directions to grant Authorised Ration Shop to the petitioner for Natwar Nagar area. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. In view of the dispute about the boundaries of the area for which the shop was to be granted and the boundaries of that area shown in the advertisement, by order dated 25.2.2009, this Court had directed the respondent 4 No.2 to visit the site in the presence of the parties and to submit a report. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 – Pramod Shivdas Salve, Deputy Controller of Rationing. Admittedly, in the advertisement, the boundaries of the area for which the shop was to be alloted, were shown as follows :- East - Tioli Building to Sai Casting Foundry West - Vikas Tower to Railway Chawl No.45 North - Railway Chawl No.45 to Tioli Building. South - Vikas Tower to Samiulla Chawl. The panchnama prepared by the Deputy Controller on 7.3.2009 reveals that the actual boundaries of the area were as follows :- East - Begum Rehman Chawl to Sai Casting Foundry. West - Railway Chawl No.45 to Vikas Tower. North - Begum Rehman Chawl to Railway Chawl No.45. South - Sai Casting Foundry to Vikas Tower. Dispute is about North-East corner. The panchnama reveals that the actual area was upto Begum Rehman Chawl, however, at the time of issuing advertisement, North-East boundary was wrongly shown as Tioli Building instead of Begum 5 Rehman Chawl, which was already demolished. Tioli Building is far away from Begum Rehman Chawl towards East. 5. In the affidavit, the Deputy Controller of Rationing, Pramod Salve stated that inadvertently the name of Tioli Building instead of Begum Rehman Chawl appears in the plan and in the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2. In view of this, it is clear that when the advertisement was issued, Tioli Building was shown as North-East boundary of Natwar Nagar for which the rationing shop was to be allotted. As per the draft map prepared by the petitioner, if Tioli Building would be North-East corner of this area, the shop premises in which he wanted to run business of ration shop would possibly be within the boundary, but if the North East corner is Begum Rehman Chawl, the shop proposed by the petitioner would be outside the boundary. If the correct boundaries would have been shown in the advertisement, the petitioner could have proposed some other shop. He proposed a particular shop because, according to him, it was within the limits. If the mistake was committed by the officers, the petitioner could not be held guilty for the same. In view of this, it appears that neither the respondent No.2 rectified the mistake nor an opportunity was given to the petitioner for making alternative proposals about location of shop before his application came to be rejected holding that it was located outside the boundaries 6 of the area. Thus, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and he has been deprived of being considered for allotment of Authorised Ration Shop. In view of these circumstances, we do not propose to enter into question as to whether the respondent No.4 would be eligible or not to be allotted ARS. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this petition. Rule made absolute partly in terms of prayer clause (c) and the orders passed by respondent No. 2 and respondent No.3 are hereby quashed and set aside. It is made clear that it will be open to the respondent-State to take decision whether to advertise afresh or not specially in view of the fact that the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court and in view of the observation of the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.303/2008. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)