(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2011 1. Shri Vitthal s/o. Hauserao Kolte, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Rohkal, Taluka : Paranda, District : Osmanabad. 2. Shri Kailash s/o. Nivrutti Gaikwad, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Chincjhpur, Taluka : Paranda, District : Osmanabad. 3. Sow. Manisha w/o. Nagesh Shinde, Age : 26 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Khasgaon, Taluka : Paranda, District : Osmanabad. 4. Shri Shahaji s/o. Limbraj Dhage, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Pistamwadi, Taluka : Paranda, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioners. versus (2) 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. District Supply Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. 3. Tahsildar, Paranda, Taluka : Paranda, District : Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. The deficit court fee is allowed to be tendered in the office. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. (3) 3. The short grievance is, the revision filed by the petitioner, against cancellation of authorization of fair price shop, before the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supply), Aurangabad, is already heard finally and closed for orders. Without waiting for those orders, the office of Collector has issued notices on 21-12-2010 and invited fresh offers. The contention is, the proclamation should not be issued, at least, during the pendency of revision. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further states that challenging that proclamation, fresh revision is again filed before the same authority but that authority has only issued notices. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents points out that both revisions are pending and earlier revision is already closed for orders. He states that if that revision is allowed, law will take its own course. According to him, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. 5. It is apparent that if earlier revision challenging cancellation of authorization is not decided and, in the meanwhile, fresh allotment is made, the third party interest will be created. The situation, therefore, can be avoided, if the revisional authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner (Civil (4) Supply) passes orders in revision within a period of three weeks from today. 6. In this view of the matter, the said authority i.e. revisional authority is directed to pass final orders in revision within a period of three weeks from today. 7. The further processing of matter, after proclamation dated 21-12-2010, shall not be over within the said period of three weeks. However, by way of abundant precaution, it is made clear that if any steps are taken as per the proclamation, same shall be subject to orders in revision, as directed above. 8. With these direction, petition is disposed of. No costs. 9. Certified Copy expedited. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp132