ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3896 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3896 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3896 OF 2008 Mr.Virendra Pratap Ramjeet Singh ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.D.Thokade for the Petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.M.V.Aiya for Respondent No.4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 28th July, 2008 : 28th July, 2008 : 28th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard, Mr.Thokade the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr.Rayrikar, the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.Aiya, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4. 2. The Petition takes exception to the order of the learned Minister, Food and Civil Supplies rejecting the Petitioner’s and granting the Respondent No.4’s Review Application. 3. The Petition pertains to allotment of new ration shop for the area of Gaodevi Road, Poisar, Kandiwali ( 2 ) (E). Total 23 Applicants including the Petitioner and the Respondent No.4, in pursuant to the advertisement, applied for allotment of Ration shop. Respondent No.3 after detailed enquiry, hold that the Respondent No.4 is entitled for allotment of Ration shop. In all 8 Applicants out of 23 filed separate Revisions before the Minister, Food and Civil Supplies challenging the allotment in favour of Respondent No.4. All the Revision applications were dismissed however, the allotment in favour of Respondent No.4 was also cancelled. The Petitioner as well as Respondent No.4 filed separate Review Application and the Hon’ble Minister, Food and Civil Supplies was pleased to allow the Review Application of Respondent No.4 by the order impugned in this Petition. 4. The Hon’ble Minister held that both the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 falls in same category i.e. Category No.8. The Minister also held that Respondent No.4 is in possession of the premises in pursuant to the documents dated 16/09/2004. This document was very much before the Respondent No.3 at the time of initial allotment. The enquiry report of the Respondent No.3 does show that the premises in possession of the Petitioner is not convenient and the ( 3 ) premises in possession of Respondent No.4 is convenient for the purpose of carrying out the business of Ration shop. 5. In view of the above, in my opinion, the Hon’ble Minister rectified his mistakes which he had committed while cancelling the allotment of fair price shop in favour of Respondent No.4 and by the impugned order allotted the fair price shop to the Respondent No.4. I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order which enable me to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The Writ Petition is dismissed, accordingly. ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)