ssp 1 WP 9073 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9073 of 2010 Tanaji Damaji Kurle .....Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Siddheshwar B. Kalel, for the petitioner. Ms.M.P.Thakur, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 10th MARCH, 2011. P.C. : 1. Petitioner who is having a fair price shop at Village Mhasa, has challenged the action of the respondent in giving advertisement for allotment of fair price shop at Village Mhasa. The said advertisement was given as back as in December 2007. It is required to be noted that in the said Village along with the petitioner, one Purohit Kanchan was also given fair price shop. Thereafter, he tendered resignation and the Department decided to give the same licence of fair price shop in view of the resignation of Shri Purohit by way of public advertisement. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the intervening period, the card holders attached to Shri Purohit, were already assigned to the petitioner and he should be allowed to continue additional ssp 2 WP 9073 of 2010 card holders. In our view, the grievance of the petitioner is absolutely unjustifiable, especially in view of the affidavit filed by Mr.Liladhar M.Duphare, District Supply Officer, Thane. Para No.3 of the affidavit reads as under : 3. I say that pursuant to the order dated 10-05-2010 new fair price shops was allotted to the Utkarsh Swayam Sahayata Mahila Bachat Gat at Gavali, Taluka Murbad, Dist. Thane. I say that threfore, card holders of Village Gavali were taken from the present petitioner handed over to the Utkarsh Swayam Sahayata Mahila Bachat Gat at Gavali, Tal.Murbad, Dist. Thane. 3. The Government is required to see the convenience of the citizens. The petitioner cannot insist that he should be given additional card holders. It is required to be noted that advertisement is required to be given in view of the directions of the Supreme Court dated 10-05-2010. It is pointed out by the learned AGP that so far as fair price shop is concerned, it will be necessary to allot the said shop to the Self Help Group by issuing an advertisement and the petitioner cannot insist that he should be allowed to retain more than 1000 card holders, as during the intervening period, he was given additional card holders of Shri Purohit. Petitioner has been protected by the Government by pointing out that even if fresh advertisement is given, petitioner will be allowed to retain 1000 units which are minimum units. The said decision is taken by the ssp 3 WP 9073 of 2010 Government in view of the Resolution that such fair price shop is required to be given to a particular category and no fault can be found with the decision taken by the authority in allotting the said fair price shop to the aforesaid Mahila Bachat Gat. We accordingly do not find any substance in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )