-: 1 :- wp- 3284/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3284 OF 2010 Smt. Diksha D. Humbarkar. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. B. Kalel for the petitioner. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Hitesh Vyas for respondent no.3. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : August 2, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petition pertains to the allotment of fair price shop. By the advertisement dated 4th February 200-8, applications were invited from eligible persons for allotment of fair price shop at Navi Vasti, Yatin Khana, Bhivandi vide Item No.194 of 2008. In all 8 persons, including the petitioner ans respondent no.3 applied for allotment. The petitioner applied from educated unemployed category and respondent no.3 applied from handicap persons category. In the Propriety List, the handicapped persons are placed at Priority No.1 whereas educated unemployed persons are placed at Priority no.2. Respondent no.2 considered the applications of 8 persons including that of the petitioner srp -: 2 :- wp- 3284/10 and respondent no.3. So far as the petitioner is considered, he failed to give proof that he is educated unemployed person, therefore, he was considered at Priority No.8. Fair Price Shop was allotted to respondent no.3. This order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Government, however, same was also dismissed and therefore the present petition. The petitioner is disputing the handicap certificate granted to respondent no.3. He claims that he is educated unemployed person. So far as the first objection is concerned, I have seen the original handicap certificate tendered by learned counsel for respondent no.3 alongwith a copy of Outward Register of District Civil Hospital, Thane. I am satisfied about the genuineness of certificate. Even accepting that the petitioner is educated unemployed person, his priority would be subsequent to that of petitioner, and therefore no fault can be found with the impugned order. I find that the fair price shop is correctly allotted to respondent no.3. I do not find any merit in the petition and same is therefore dismised. (R.V. MORE, J.)