1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4713 OF 1996. Shri Mallikarjun S/o Nagappa Gheware, Age 31 years, occup. Business(Fair Price Shop) R/o Daregaon, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded. ... PETITIONER. V E R S U S 1 The State of Maharashtra, Through, the Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3 Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor, District Nanded. 4 Smt. Ujwalabai Raghunathrao Lade, Age 35 years, occupation Household and Business, R/o Daregaon, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------ Mr.A.K.Chitnis,Advocate, holding for Mr.P.V.Mandlik,Senior Advocate for petitioner. Mrs.Rekha Ladda,A.G.P, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. M.P.Tripathi,advocate holding for Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil,Advocate for respondent No.4 ------------------------------------------ 2 (CORAM : P.R.BORKAR, J. ) DATE : 25TH September,2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed by an un-successful bidder for Fair Price Shop, whom though initially Fair Price Shop was allotted by Sub Divisional Officer Degloor, by order NO.95/kaksh.2/PuPra-Kat 38, dated 16.12.1995. Said order was reversed in Revision No. 16 of 1996, by the the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, by order dated 11.06.1996 and said Fair Price Shop was allotted to respondent No.4. 2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to this petition, are as follows:- One Balasaheb Vitthalrao Deshmukh was holding license for running Fair Price Shop at village Daregaon, Taluka Degloor. Due to his personal difficulties and illness, he requested for cancellation of the license. The same was cancelled on 28.08.1995. Thereafter, for allotment of Fair Price shop, a public notification was issued and seven applications were received. The seven applicants were called for interview on 18.11.1995. However, out of seven, two applicants namely, Shaikh Imam and Madhav Rama remained absent. Interviews of the remaining applicants were conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and amongst them 3 there were present Writ Petitioner and respondent No.4. The Sub-Divisional Officer allotted Fair Price Shop to the petitioner by order dated 16.12.1996. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.4 filed revision before Commissioner Aurangabad, which came to be heard by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad. He cancelled the order of allotment of Fair Price Shop, passed infavour of the petitioner, by the Sub-Divisional Officer and allotted the Fair Price Shop to the respondent No.4. Being aggrieved thereby this Writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Mr. A.K.Chitnis, Counsel h/f Mr. P. V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Rekha Ladda, A.G.P., for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and M. Ghute Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 5. Mrs.Rekha Ladda, A.G.P.produced copy of the Government Resolution dated 12th November, 1991, whereby the guidelines were issued for allotment of Fair Price Shop. The same is taken on record and marked as ‘X’, for identification. 6. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner brought attention of this court to the entire record. The 4 order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was criticised on several counts. It is stated that in the order the Sub- Divisional Officer has not given any valid reason. The reasons given for not allotting Fair Price Shop to respondent No.4 is that she being lady and she is not able to run the Fair Price Shop and it would be run by members of her family. The learned Advocate Mr.Chitnis states that the reasons given for setting aside the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer are not proper, sufficient. Wrongly the Fair Price Shop is allotted to the respondent No.4. 7. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Exh.3 states that public notice was issued and the applicants were interviewed and it was found that the present petitioner was right person to allot Fair Price Shop and therefore, he passed the order. It is not stated what was revealed in the interview; what were the plus points for accepting the application of the present petitioner and why the applications of other applicants who were present for interview were not accepted. The order is completely silent regarding result of or disclosures in the interviews. However, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad, reveals that certain office notes, which throw light on the reasons, were before him. Thus, the reason given in the office note for 5 rejecting the claim of respondent No. 4 was that she was lady and after getting allotment of Fair Shop in her name, some other member of her family would run the shop. She was not competent to run the shop. The Deputy Commissioner observed that the Sub-Divisional Officer ignored the policy of Government for giving preference to Women. 8. The learned A.G.P.,Mrs Ladda, argued that the Government Resolution dated 12th November,1991 issued by Food and Civil Supply Department ( marked ‘X’) lays down different priorities given separately for Tribal areas and other areas. So far as other areas are concerned, priority list is given of all nine categories. It appears that there was no application from first eight categories and last category was ‘remaining’. Thereafter, the Government Resolution laid down that while considering the remaining persons, the lady applicants should have highest priority. Second priority should be given to educated unemployed. Even amongst these categories at serial Nos. 4 to 9 preference must be given to ladies first and then to educated unemployed persons. So, Mrs. Ladda, A.G.P. states that Deputy Commissioner has rightly reversed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and allotted the Fair Price Shop to respondent No.4 who was lady. It appears that the 6 Government has laid down policy consistent with theme of empowerment of women. 9. Certain criticism levelled by the Deputy Collector while allowing revision petition is justified in as much as process of selection does not as per transparent from the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional officer ought to have mentioned reasons for preferring the petitioner over other four applicants in his order itself. It is also noted by the Deputy Commissioner that Sarpanch and other 74 villagers recommended the name of the petitioner and that was not mentioned in the order by the Sub Divisional Officer. It is observed that more importance was given to the local politics and personal likes and dislikes, than the guidelines given in the Government Resolution. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer does not state how many applications were received, how many applicants were present and for what reasons particular application was granted or rejected. Infact, that was necessary in the order. Such order of allotting Fair Price Shop requires to be a speaking order. I agree with this observation. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner while allowing the revision petition has given due consideration to the guidelines in the Government Resolution. 7 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner did not commit any error in allowing the revision petition. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Rule discharged. ( P.R.BORKAR, J. ) MTK/W.P.4713.96