: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4022 OF 2009 Shradha Arvind Sherkhane ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.V. Aiya for Petitioner Ms.S.S. Bhende, AGP, for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9th JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioner claims to be physically challenged. She contends that the orders dated 28.11.2008 and 1.12.008 should be set aside. She has also prayed that an enquiry should be instituted and appropriate action should be taken against those persons directly or indirectly involved “in the present issue as per the law after getting report from the appropriate authority in the present issue”. 2. The impugned orders dated 28.11.2008 and 1.12.2008 have been passed in respect of shop No.ARS No.34E 216 which is situated in Ghatkopar. The Petitioner has been allotted shop No.ARS 34E 217. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in respect of shop No.ARS 34E 216 as she had nothing to do with that shop, having been allotted a ration shop in Govandi. : 2 : 3. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the orders passed with respect to shop No.ARS 34E 216. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by allotting the aforesaid shop No.ARS 34E 216 to respondent No.5, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have committed an illegality inasmuch as the petitioner has not been allotted 3000 units as permissible under the Government Resolution. This is not a prayer sought in the petition. However, some pleadings are contained with regard to the allotment of 3000 units. Assuming the petitioner has not been allotted 3000 units as required in law, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the present orders. There is no averment contained that by allotment of shop to Respondent No.5 the units which have already been allotted to the petitioner have been reduced. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to 3000 units is not the subject matter of the impugned orders. 5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suryakant Govindrao Shinde v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No.2246 of 1998 decided on 22.3.2005 in which the Court has considered various circulars and notifications issued by the Government with respect to the allotment of fair price shops. In my opinion, this judgment has no application to the present case. The other judgment cited is of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Prakash Mahadeo Khot & Ors. v/s. Maruti Dadu Khot & Ors., 2005(4) Bom.C.R. 568. This judgment is in respect of section 73IC of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act where the learned Judge was concerned with the resignations which were tendered by the members of the Managing Committee. This judgment also in my : 3 : view has no application in this case. The last judgment cited was of the Supreme Court in the case of Modern School v/s. Shashi Pal Sharma & Ors., 2007 (8) SCC 540 wherein the Supreme Court considered withdrawal of resignation submitted by an employee of a recognised school. Again, that judgment has no relevance to the facts in the present case. The petitioner has no locus whatsoever to challenge the orders passed by Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Assuming the impugned orders have been passed after respondent No.5 had decided not to continue with the fair price shop which was earlier allotted and had changed his mind, admittedly, the shop had not been allotted to anybody else during that period. In these circumstances, the petitioner as stated earlier, has no locus to challenge the impugned orders. 6. Petition rejected. In any event, the prayer for initiating a judicial enquiry is not a prayer which can be granted by a Single Judge of this Court.