1 (WP 7305 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7305 OF 2010 Samanata Mahila Bachat Gat ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Siddheshwar B. Kalel for Petitioner Mr.R.M. Patne -AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.M.v. Aiya i/b. Mr. Hitesh Vyas for Respondent No.3 Mr.J.S. Chandnani for Respondent No.4 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3 2. An advertisement was issued by the Deputy Controller of Rationing for allotment of a rationing shop. Pursuant to the said advertisement, several applications were received. The Petitioner was also one of the applicants, so was the Respondent Nos.3,4 and 5. After 2 (WP 7305 of 2010) going through the list of priorities and taking into consideration the documents which were submitted by the applicants, the Competent Authority was pleased to pass an order in favour of the Respondent No.3. This order was challenged by the Petitioner by filing a revision application before the Hon’ble Minister. The Hon’ble Minister set aside the order passed by the Competent Authority and directed that the allotment should be made in favour of the Respondent No.4. Thereafter, a review petition was filed by the Respondent No.3 herein on various grounds. The Petitioner herein filed revision application. In the revision application, it was contention of the Petitioner that the Competent Authority had erroneously came to the conclusion that the area of the Petitioner’s shop was less than the prescribed area. It was contended by the Petitioner in the revision application that in fact, the said finding was incorrect and area was in accordance with the prescribed area provided by the rules. In the revision application, the Hon’ble Minister was pleased to set aside his earlier order and cancelled the allotment which was made to the Respondent No.4 and directed that the allotment should be made in favour of the Respondent No.3 herein. 3 (WP 7305 of 2010) 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that without ascertaining the actual area of the Petitioner’s shop, the Hon’ble Minister had allowed the review application filed by the Respondent No.3. It was then submitted that so far as the Respondent No.3 is concerned, the agreement of lease was executed for a period of three years and not for five years as was mentioned in the advertisement. It was also submitted that the lease agreement was not registered. It was also submitted that in the earlier order which was passed by the Minister, the Minister had observed that the relevant documents for the purpose of establishing the eligibility criteria was not submitted by the Respondent No.3. It was, therefore, contended that the revision application which was filed by the Petitioner herein was not considered and only the review application was disposed of. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3 submitted that the Hon’ble Minister had taken into consideration the submissions made by all the parties to the review application and, thereafter, had passed a reasoned order. It was submitted that as per the direction given by the 4 (WP 7305 of 2010) Supreme Court, the State of Maharashtra was pleased to issue a circular. In the said circular, pursuant to the direction given by the Supreme Court dated 10.5.2010 in Writ Petition No. 196/2001, I.A. No.90/2009, the following direction was given: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties. As an interim measure, the State of Maharashtra is permitted to issue licences for Fair Price Shops and Kerosene retail shops to Self Help Groups. They may distribute it through Gram Panchayat, Co-operative Society, Women/Co-operative Society run by women, Ex-Army Co-operative Society Handicapped, Widow and greater priority would be given to the Widows of Army men.” In view of the said direction, a direction was given that Self Employeed Mahila Bachat Gat should be given priority of allotment and if Mahila Bachat Gat do not accept the offer, then other group should be given a priority. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.3 are the Mahila Bachat Gat. 5 (WP 7305 of 2010) The Hon’ble Minister after taking into consideration the documents which were produced before him came to the conclusion that the Respondent no.3 herein was entitled. He was also came to the conclusion that the Petitioner herein did not produce any documents in support of its case that the area of its shop was according to the prescribed criteria i.e. 100 sq.ft. and, therefore, he came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was eligible to the area wise. It was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that this observation made by the Hon’ble Minister was incorrect, particularly when the Petitioner had filed an application for re-measurement of their shop. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that this aspect has not been considered by the Hon’ble Minister and, therefore, this is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back. 5. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. The matter regarding allotment of fair price shop was considered by the Hon’ble Minister in the review application and he has given cogent reasons in paragraph 9 as to why the earlier order was cancelled and how the Respondent No.3 6 (WP 7305 of 2010) was eligible for allotment of the fair price shop. It has to be noted that if these matter are kept pending for indefinite time, ultimately, common man for whose benefit these shops are allotted would be affected. There has to be, therefore, some finality to the order regarding allotment of fair prize shop. This Court while exercising a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not expected to again re-appreciate the entire evidence recorded by the Appellate Authority. 6. In my view, the reasons given by the Hon’ble Minister cannot be said to be perverse and, therefore, it is not necessary to remand the matter back to the Minister. 7. Hence, writ petition is dismissed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)