wp10105.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10105 OF 2010 Smt. Sarswatibai w/o Sadashiv Dahibhate ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. N.R. Salunke, advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.R.Korde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4 Ms. Vanita H. Sangole, advocate h/f Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent No.5 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 3RD DECEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.9.2010 passed by respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad bearing No. 2010/SB/RP/Appeal 382/10. 2 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned in this petition is passed without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He further submits that no documents were given to the petitioner by the respondents though specific request was made to that effect. It is further submitted that once interim order is granted, there is no provision to vacate the same. He invited my attention to the wp10105.10 2 guidelines issued by the Apex Court as to in what manner the fair price shop should be allocated to the interested persons. He further invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and the pleadings therein and submitted that the order impugned is passed without hearing the petitioner he, therefore, prays that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3 On the other hand, learned A.G.P. appearing for the State and its authorities invited my attention to the order dated 9.8.2006 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 2908 of 2006 and more particularly para 4 of the said order and submitted that the allotment of fair price shop in favour of respondent No.5 is done considering the observations of this Court and therefore, it is not open for the authorities to take different view than approved by this court in afore mentioned writ petition. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 invited my attention to the contents in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.5 and submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 Upon hearing counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, I am of the opinion that this petition is filed challenging the order by which the authority has vacated the wp10105.10 3 exparte interim relief granted earlier in favour of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that initially interim relief was granted by the authorities exparte. Thereafter, The Deputy Commissioner (Supply) upon hearing the parties thought it proper that such order restraining the respondent No.5 from running the fair price shop would run contrary to the order passed by this court in writ petition No. 2908 of 2006 on 9.8.2006. By the said order, this court has confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) in the earlier round of litigation. In pursuant to the decision of this court in writ petition No. 2908 of 2006, the District Supply Officer, Beed taking into consideration the suitability of the candidate and more particularly that of respondent No.5, who is not only widow but also handicapped lady, granted fair price shop in her favour. It is stated in the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.5 that the order passed by the District Supply Officer on 29.7.2010 grating shop in favour of respondent No.5 has been already implemented. 5 In my opinion, the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), after hearing the parties has vacated exparte interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner. That apart, somebody has to run the fair price shop pending the main proceedings. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) has rightly vacated the exparte interim order granted at the time of first hearing of the proceedings initiated wp10105.10 4 before the said authority by the petitioner. Since, this petition is directed against the interim order thereby vacating the stay granted in favour of the petitioner, it would not be appropriate to make any comment on merits of the matter, since the main matter is pending before Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad. Suffice it to say that the authorities has taken into consideration the fact that the District Supply Officer has taken a decision to grant fair price shop in favour of respondent No.5 keeping in mind the observations made in the order passed by this court in writ petition No. 2908 of 2006 dated 9.8.2006. In addition to that, it is mentioned in the order of the District Supply Officer that respondent No.5 is widow and also handicapped lady. 7 Taking over all view of the matter, in my opinion, this petition is misconceived and hence same stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observations made herein above, are for the purpose of deciding the instant writ petition. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply) should not get influenced by any observations, while finally hearing and deciding the proceeding pending before him on merits. Writ petition stands dismissed. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/