1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 44 OF 2009 Shri Mohanlal s/o Bhavarlal Sharma .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil,AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate for respondent no 5. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3337 OF 2009 Smt. Indumati Mathuradas Thakkar .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for respondent no. 5. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2010 2 PER COURT : 1 Order passed by the Minister, Food and Civil Supply, State of Maharashtra on 3-12-2008 allowing the revision application presented by the petitioners herein and further directing the authority to issue fresh proclamation calling upon the applications for allotment of fair price shop for village Nandurbar is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 It transpires that the proclamation was issued on 30-1-2004. There were five applications received apart from the applications of both the petitioners. Considering the application tendered by the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 44/2009, the District Supply Officer deemed it fit to permit him to run a fair price shop. So far as the application tendered by the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 3337/2009 is concerned, the same was not considered favourably. An appeal was presented raising exception to the action of the District Supply Officer. The appeal was allowed by the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nasik and, while setting aside the order in respect of allotment of shop, it was directed by the appellate authority to render decision in respect of allotment of shop afresh. The order passed by the appellate authority was subjected to challenge in revision 3 application before the State Government. While passing the impugned order, it was observed by the learned Minister that the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 44/2009 already holds licence for distribution of kerosene and as such, he cannot be considered as an educated unemployed and, as such, his application ought not to have been considered. So far as the case put up by the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 3337/2009 is concerned, it is observed by the learned Minister that the application has been tendered in individual capacity and on the date of presentation of the application the society was not registered. The learned Minister, therefore, quashed the earlier order and directed the District Supply Officer to issue fresh proclamation. 3 I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioners in both the petitions. Mr. Girase, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 44/2009 contends that the order passed by the learned Minister is illegal as there is no authentication as contemplated by the Business Rules. Learned counsel seeks leave to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Gulabrao Keshvrao Patil vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 26. It is to be noted that the matter before the Apex Court was in respect of executive order issued by the Minister. As per the provisions of the Business 4 Rules, the order was necessarily to be authenticated and it was also required to be issued in the name of the Governor. However, in the instant matter, the distinguishing feature is that the order issued by the Minister is quasi judicial in nature. The rule cited at bar, therefore, has no application to the facts of the instant case. It is to be noted that in pursuance to the proclamation issued in the year 2004, the process of allotment of shop has not yet been finalised. So far as the petitioners herein are concerned, they can also be permitted to participate in the process of allotment of shop. They are free to tender their applications and the same be considered by the competent authority on its own merits. Considering the reasons stated by the Minister in the impugned order, no interference is called for in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the petitions therefore stand rejected summarily. 4 In view of dismissal of petitions, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp44.09.odt