1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4861/2009 MAHAMAYA MAHILA BACHAT GAT VS. STATE AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.Y.N.Thengare, Advocate, for the petitioner Learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Kapil Deshmukh, Advocate, for Respondent No.4 CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 15, 2010. Heard. By the impugned order dated 31.08.2009 the Hon'ble Minister has granted Kerosene Retail Shop to Respondent No.4 Sangam Mahima Bachat Gut, as the petitioner Mahamaya Mahila Bachat Gut were already granted fair price shop. Advocate Thengare for the petitioner argues that for allotting kerosene license, holders of Fair Price Shops are to be given precedence. He also invited attention to the proceedings of Mahila Gram Sabha wherein only 112 women voted for granting license to Respondent No.4 while 129 women voted against it. Advocate Deshmukh invited attention to the Policy as formulated on 3rd February, 2007 in this respect. He and learned AGP submit that as there are two Mahila Bachat Guts, the decision has been taken properly and in accordance with law. 2 It is apparent that there are two groups and two Mahila Bachat Gut. The grant of Fair Price Shop to petitioner also, therefore, cannot be by way of unanimous resolution. In this situation, the authorities as also the Hon'ble Minister has resolved the controversy democratically by giving one license to one group and other license to other group. I do not find any violation warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Advocate Thengare has during the arguments tried to point out certain irregularities in the functioning of Respondent No.4. Advocate Deshmukh is denying any such irregularity or illegality and states that there is no such pleading. It is apparent that such subsequent events can be made basis of complaint and if there are valid complaints, the authorities are duty bound to look into the same. No interference in the impugned order is warranted because of alleged grievance. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rvjalit.