1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6786 OF 2009 Subhashchandra Jaiswal .. Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar i/b Ms.Suvarna Pratap for the petitioner. Mr.Mukesh Aiya for respondent no.4. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 9TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. This petition is directed against the order dated 30.6.2009 passed by respondent no.3. By this order an allotment of ration shop in favour of the petitioner has been set aside and the said shop has been allotted to respondent no.4. 4. The petitioner and respondent no.4 were amongst the 13 applicants, who had applied for allotment of a ration shop at Navibasti, Kabrastan, Bhiwandi, in response to the advertisement dated 4.2.2008. The petitioner, being 2 handicapped person, he applied from that category and hence his application fell under priority No.1. Respondent no.4, though applied under priority no.2, i.e. Educated unemployed, since he did not furnish supporting documents, his claim was considered under priority no.8. Respondent no.2 after having satisfied that the petitioner had complied with all requirements, allotted the ration shop to the petitioner. That order was challenged by respondent no.4 before respondent no.3. Respondent No.3 has set aside the order of allotment solely on the ground that the premises shown by the petitioner for running the shop was also shown by one another applicant Smt.Asha B. Kamble and that there is no proof that the petitioner was not in possession of the shop premises. The ground on which the order of allotment has been set aside, in my opinion, cannot be sustained in law for more than one reason. Firstly, the Minister has completely overlooked the affidavit filed by the landlord of the shop premises stating therein that the shop premises bearing Gala No.1, House No.527/1 is divided into two parts and a part of the said gala admeasuring 120 sq. ft. is given to the petitioner on lease for a period of five years under the agreement and he is in possession thereof. The other part of this gala was, it appears, given to Asha Kamble. Apart from this I have perused the memo of revision filed by respondent no.4, which does not show 3 having raised this ground by him. Even if it is assumed that same shop number was given by two persons, neither the said person i.e. Smt.Asha B.Kamble nor the landlord have come forward stating that the petitioner is not in possession of the shop premises. In this view of the matter the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Order accordingly. It is open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority for allowing him to open the shop in pursuance of the order passed by the Deputy Controller – respondent no.2. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order. No costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)