10 1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1569/2004 (Bhinya Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 6th April 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Vijay Bishoni,for the petitioners. Mr.Anand Purohit, Additional Advocate General. .... BY THE COURT Though the matter has been placed on Board for consideration of an application (IA No.1258/2007) moved by the respondents seeking early hearing of this writ petition on the ground that the matter in controversy stands concluded with the decisions of this Court in other matters including that in CWP No.2235/2004, however, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the decisions so rendered and so also the subsequent decisions including that in the case of Kamal Kishore & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: CWP No.70/2004 decided on 26.10.2007, nothing further survives for consideration in this writ petition. While dismissing the aforesaid similar nature writ petition, CWP No.2235/2004, this Court has said,- “Though shortage and other incidents in distribution have also been included in the commission to be granted to the fair price shop keepers, the claim for further shortage cannot be entertained. Since it is a policy decision of the State Government under a particular scheme 2 and further there is choice of the petitioners to take up the work under the scheme, no interference is called for by this Court in such matters under writ jurisdiction.” Following the decision aforesaid, this present petition also stands dismissed. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni