skc 1 WP-4681-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4681 OF 2011 Surekha Suresh Wagh ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A. R. Pitale for Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale - Assistant Government Pleader for State – Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. Rohan Sonawane for Respondent No. 6. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. 14 September 2011 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Minister dated 29th April 2011 whereby the order dated 24th April 2006 passed by the respondent no.4 came to be quashed and set aside. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proclamation / advertisement was issued in October 2005 in respect of allotment of fair price shop. Pursuant to that skc 2 WP-4681-11 applications were submitted by the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 for grant of allotment. It is submitted that the respondent no. 6 was considered eligible and fair price shop was allotted to her. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Minister is challenged on two grounds (i) that the same is violative of principles of natural justice and (ii) that the respondent no. 6 was not eligible for grant of allotment of fair price shop. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. So far as the ground no.1 is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition no. 5809 of 2007 in this Court against the order dated 29th November 2006 passed by the State Government in revision application. This Court vide Order dated 13th October 2010 directed the State Government to reconsider the revision application of the petitioner afresh as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same on or before 31st December 2010. In view of the Order passed by this Court it is evident that the petitioner was well aware that the State Government has to dispose of the revision on or before 31st December 2010. In the instant case notices were issued by the State Government to the petitioner as well as to the respondent no. 6 whereby they were called for hearing on 21st December 2010. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was present before the State Government on 21st December 2010. However, the petitioner submitted skc 3 WP-4681-11 application for adjournment. The Minister considering the directions issued by this Court not accepted the request of the petitioner for adjournment and therefore it was necessary for the petitioner to argue the matter before the Minister. However, the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings of revision held before the Minister on 21st December 2010 and therefore in our view the petitioner is estopped from canvassing before this Court that the order is violative of principles of natural justice. 4. So far as the second ground raised by the petitioner is concerned, counsel for the petitioner failed to place before us any material to hold that the respondent no. 6 did not fulfil the eligible criteria applicable in this regard except the general statement made in the petition which is not specific and totally vague. In absence of specific data placed on record in this regard, it is not possible for us to agree with the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. For the reasons stated herein above, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ petition is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)