1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1621 OF 2003 Kansing Nandaji Kharavad. .. Petitioner.. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. J. K. Jadhav for petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP., for respondent/State. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2623 OF 2003 Kansing Nandaji Kharavad. .. Petitioner.. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. H.G. Wakshe for petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP., for respondent/State. CORAM : J.N. PATEL & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2009. 2 P.C. The petitioners have filed these two petitions for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 30.9.2002 and 15.1.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Minister. 2. It is contended that the petitioners have applied for allocation of fair price shops for which the respondents have advertised. However, the petitioners were not allotted the fair price shops though, according to the petitioners, they were entitled to get allocation of the fair price shops as they have complied with all the requirements under the statute. 3. It is contended that the distribution of the fair price shops was done by the Hon’ble Minister by exceeding his powers, which were not according to the statute. It is further contended that instead of deciding the revision applications of the petitioners for allocation of the fair price shops, the Hon’ble Minister has generated and allotted five additional fair price shps to the persons other than the petitioners. 4. The learned A.G.P. Appearing for the State fairly concedes and submits that appropriate orders be passed by this Court. 3 5. While allocating the fair price shops, the Hon’ble Minister is expected to examine the merits and de-merits of each case before him and not to use discretion arbitrarily but according to the law. 6. This Court had an occasion to deal with the same issue in earlier two petitions i.e., in Writ Petition No. 2246 of 1998 (Shri Suryakant Govindrao Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) decided on 22.03.2005 and in Writ Petition No. 5091 of 2003 (Kum. Sushama Kashinath Boir vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) decided on 04.04.2005. In the judgment in W.P. No. 2246 of 1998 the Division Bench of this Court has rightly taken a view that the revisional authority exercising power of revision does not have the power to grant additional shops other than which were advertised. The advertisement has to be for the number of shops to be allotted. In view of this and also considering the contentions raised in the present petitions, we quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Hon’ble Minister and remand the matters back to the Hon’ble Minister to decide the same afresh after giving due notice to the parties. Decision in the matter be taken within three months from the date of passing of this order. In the meantime, the present arrangement of allocation of fair price shops to continue to operate. 7. Both the petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 4 8. The learned AGP., to communicate this order to the Hon’ble Minister. (J. N. Patel, J.) (Mridula Bhatkar, J.) 5