: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8891 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.8891 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.8891 OF 2004 Smt.Shaileshwari Dharmaraj Pujari .. Petitioner. Versus Smt.Sushila Mahalingappa Swami & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Parag Shelke i/b.Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 to 5. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 17th June, 2008. DATE : 17th June, 2008. DATE : 17th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the State Government on 4.10.2004. 2. Facts which are necessary for deciding this petition are that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 both had applied for grant of a fair price shop. The District Supply Officer, Solapur found that the petitioner is eligible for the same and granted the shop to him. The Deputy Commissioner of Supply, however, reversed that order and granted respondent No.1 the fair price shop. He found that the petitioner and respondent No.1 belong to the same category and, therefore, one of them should be chosen by draw in lots. That order was challenged before the State Government by the petitioner. The State : 2 : Government found that as the petitioner and respondent No.1 both are of the same category, choice amongst them cannot be made by draw of lots but the Government observed that because the respondent No.1 is handicapped, she should be preferred and the shop has been allotted to her. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order of the State Government is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 22.4.1998, especially, paragraph 3 thereof. 4. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. Perusal of paragraph 3 of the Government Resolution dated 22.4.1998 which admittedly is applicable lays down that if there are more than one candidates belonging to the same category, then, their applications should be scrutinised on the touch stone of the education qualification, financial capacity and the space that is available with them for the shop. Perusal of the order of the State Government shows that according to the Government also the petitioner and the respondent No.1 belong to the same category, but Government chose the respondent No.1 because she is handicapped. This is clearly contrary to the paragraph 3 of the Government Resolution dated 22.4.1998. In our opinion, therefore, : 3 : following order would meet the ends of justice. a) The order dated 4.10.2004 passed by the State Government challenged in the petition is set aside. b) The revision is remitted back to the State Government for de-novo consideration and decision in accordance with law and as per the Government Resolution dated 22.4.1998. It is clarified that as the shop has been allotted to respondent No.1 and it is nobody’s case that she is not eligible for the same, during the pendency of the revision, in the interest of justice, running of the shop by respondent No.1 be continued subject to the result of the revision. 5. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)