1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.197 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.44 OF 2009 Shri. Mohanlal s/o Bhavarlal Sharma, R/o-Nagainagar, Nandurbar, Tq. & Dist-Nandurbar. ...APPELLANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Food and Civil Supply, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Minister, Food and Civil Supply, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 3) The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nashik Division, Nashik, 4) The District Supply Officer, Nandurbar, Dist-Nandurbar, 5) Smt. Indumati Mathuradas Thakkar, R/o-Bajrang Colony, Nandurbar, Dist-Nandurbar. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri. A.B. Girase Advocate for Appellant. Shri. V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri. Jayant R. Shah Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 7TH OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri. Girase, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nashik Division, Nashik, had directed the District Supply Officer for determining the priority list in accordance with the policy of the State. The Hon'ble Minister remanded the matter by directing a fresh proclamation, which is contrary to the order passed by the lower authority. The order is unreasonable. The counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge committed error in rejecting the Writ Petition. The issues 3 as raised by the Appellant were not addressed by the learned Single Judge. 3. We have perused the orders passed by the Authorities including the Deputy Commissioner and the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The District Supply Officer by an order dated 9th June 2004, observed that the Appellant is resident of the locality and he deals in kerosene distribution, therefore it would be useful if the Appellant is allotted the fair price shop. The learned Commissioner observed that the lower authority did not set the priority list properly in accordance with the scheme framed by the State Government. Though the Deputy Commissioner had remanded the matter back to the District Supply Officer for taking fresh decision, the Hon'ble Minister directed for a fresh proclamation. The learned Single Judge, in the facts of the case, did not find serious illegality or perversity in the order. In exercise of our 4 jurisdiction under Letters Patent Appeal, we do not find any patent illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by us. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the claim of the contesting parties. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/OCT10/lpa197.10