1 SSK/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6801 OF 2009 Baneshawari Mahila Swaysayata Bachat Gat ....Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mrs. P.P.Bhosale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 1st JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mrs. Bhosale, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.Cardozo, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The Respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 4th February, 2008 in newspaper for allotment of Ration Shop under item no.250/08 for the area known as Hanuman Takdi, Sahakarwadi, Goregaon (East), Mumbai. In pursuant of the advertisement, six persons including the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 applied for allotment of the Ration Shop. The Ration Shop is to be alloted in accordance with the policy laid down by the Government. Under the policy, priority list is given. Bachat Gats fall at 2 serial no.1 and handicapped persons fall at serial No.2 of the priority list. The Respondent No.2 allotted Ration Shop to the Petitioner. This order was challenged by Respondent No.4 by way of appeal before the Hon’ble Minister. The Hon’ble Minister after hearing both the parties was pleased to set-aside the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner and allotted the Ration Shop to Respondent No.4. 3. I have seen the list of members of the Petitioner Bachat Gat. I find all the members are from one and the same family i.e.Prajapati family. Things does not stop here, the Petitioner- Bachat Gat was registered after the issuance of the advertisement for allotment of the Ration Shop. Under the Government Resolution dated 3rd November, 2007, the Bachat Gat is required to be in operation for sufficiently long time. It is clear from the above facts that the Petitioner-Bachat Gat was registered by the members of the Prajapati family, only to obtain allotment of Ration Shop. In these facts and circumstances, the Petitioner is not eligible for allotment of Ration Shop. The Respondent No.4 on the contrary is a handicapped person and thus falls at Serial No.2 in the priority list. He complies with all the conditions except that the height of his rented shop was not 8 feet. However, the Hon’ble Minister directed him to raise the height of the entrance of the Shop to 8 feet within a period of two months from the date of the order. 3 4. Taking over all facts and circumstances into consideration, I find that the Hon’ble Minister has passed an equitable order and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)