:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6739 OF 2007 Mr.Jiya Dalwani ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.S.P.Kanuga i/by. Smt.S.N.Nath for the petitioners. for the respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 10th 10th 10th December, 2007. December, 2007. December, 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. In the peculiar facts of this case, the petitioner has been found to be ineligible on two grounds, one with regard to his disability and second with regard to the financial capacity. The submission of Mr.Kanuga that insofar his physical disability is concerned, is that petitioner produced a certificate :2: :2: :2: from, Civil Surgeon, Thane which certifies him to be disabled to the extent of 40%. However, the certificate which has been relied upon has been submitted by All India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation which states that the petitioners is disabled to the extent of 32%. 2. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, in the peculiar facts of this case, I do not feel that it is necessary to interfere with the conclusion of the authorities. They have chosen to rely upon a certificate which is issued by the All India Institute of Physical Medical and Rehabilitation which is Government of India (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) Institute so also its own G.R. dated 19.8.1992. Hence, any larger question need not be decided. That apart, the Affidavit filed on behalf of the State, amply clarifies that the Certificate of Civil Surgeon cannot be relied upon because it is latter in point of time. 3. Insofar as, the other aspect is concerned, both the petitioner and the Respondent No.3 thereafter :3: :3: :3: come in the same category/priority no.8. The argument of the petitioner is that the Bank account may have been opened by him on 17.3.2005 i.e. after the date of his application, yet, the advertisement does not set out any date by which he should have opened the Bank account and the amounts shown as credited therein to show his capacity. That account can be opened by him later on. 4. This plea is opposed by the State is also by respondent no.3. In my view, since an ad-interim order has been operating from 11.9.2007 and the petitioner has stated that he did not have an opportunity to peruse the Revision Application preferred by the third respondent as there was more than one hearing, then, interest of justice would be subserved if the order under challenge is set aside to the extent that respondent no.2 shall re-examine the issue of the eligibility of the petitioner and respondent no.3 for allotment of Ration shops in Category/Priority No.8. This issue shall be examined after giving opportunity to both sides. The petitioner and respondent no.3 to appear before the second Respondent on 20.12.2007 and :4: :4: :4: the second Respondent thereafter to hear the petitioner and the Respondent no.3 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of appearance. Till the Revision Application is decided the ad-interim order would continue. Petition disposed off in above terms. No costs. *******