: 1 : wp-6459-11.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6459 OF 2011 Pyaridevi Mahila Bachat Gut ... Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Mukesh Aiya for the Petitioners Mr. Siddheshwar Kalel for Respondent No.4 Mr. R.M.Patne AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: AUGUST 10, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. Perused the order passed by the Deputy Controller of Rationing as also the Minister, in revision. 2 It is argued by the Petitioners Advocate that the Minister/Revisional Authority has adopted different yardstick. In so far as, Mahila Bachat gut is concerned, that Bachat gut is given priority under the allotment in fair price shop. The bachat gut stands at priority No.1. It is only when bachat gut is not functioning, that other person in priorities can be considered. In the instance case, the Petitioner is the Mahila Bachat gut. It satisfies the relevant criteria. The Deputy Controller of Rationing has in his report stated that the Petitioner has made available land, it has requisite finance and it has a capacity to run the fair price shop. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioners could not have been ignored. The same Minister has given : 2 : wp-6459-11.sxw preference to the Mahila Bachat gut in allotting a fair price shop, and my attention is invited by Mr. Aiya to the order dated 2-3-2009 and 9-11-2010 to this effect. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order should be set aside. 3 In the present case, an advertisement of allotment of fair price shop for the subject area was issued on 4-2-2008. The Petitioner- Mahila Bachat gut was registered on 12-2-2008. The allotment in this case is made not in favour of the Petitioners but in favour of Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 in this case is a lady and she is also a part of the priority but below the Petitioner. The Respondent No.4 is an educated unemployed. By referring to the relevant Government Circulars, it has been held by the Minister that the Petitioner - Mahila Bachat gut was registered after the advertisement was issued. Therefore, the Deputy Controller as also the Minister was of the opinion that it being a recently registered group, it will not be in a position to run the fair price shop straightaway. The recently registered Mahila Bachat gut was, therefore, not considered and the allotment of the fair price shop is made in favour of educated unemployed lady. 4 I find no substance in the argument that the order passed is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. It is not as if the claim of the Petitioner has not been considered at all. If the Deputy Controller of Rationing and the Minister was of the opinion that the Mahila Bachat gut in this case were : 3 : wp-6459-11.sxw recently formed and in so far as the requisite criteria is concerned, it may not be in a position to straightaway run a fair price shop. I do not see how an order passed in the peculiar facts of this case can be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. Merely because in other matters the Mahila Bachat gut was given the fair price shop in tune with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India does not mean that the subject order is arbitrary and discriminatory. There, the authorities noted that the bachat gut was functional and had a capacity to efficiently manage and administer a fair price shop. Ultimately, such decisions are made by the authorities who are in charge of distributing essential commodities to the needy persons at a reasonable and cheap price, for that purpose, the fair price shops are allotted. It is not as if there is any absolute right in anybody to claim allotment. In these circumstances, I do not find that the impugned order is any way vitiated so as to call for interference in writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and is, therefore, dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)