1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5597 OF 2010 Arun s/o Sakharam Kolhe, Age : 40 years, Occu.Agri., R/o Umra, Tq. Pathari, Dist. Parbhani ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary in the Department of Food & Civil Supply, Fort, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Hon'ble Minister, Food Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 ..RESPONDENTS Mr K.S. Chavan, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 28th June, 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V. HARDAS , J ] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent no.2 to decide the revision filed by the petitioner which is said to be pending since September, 2007. 3. It appears that the petitioner submitted an application pursuant to a proclamation issued by the District Supply Officer, Parbhani inviting applications from the villagers for grant of fair price shop at village Umra. Upon consideration of the applications, it appears that the District Supply Officer allowed the application filed by one Vithal Vishwanathrao Kolhe and accordingly the fair price shop came to be granted to him. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the District Supply Officer filed appropriate proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) at Aurangabad. The Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) by his order set aside the order of the District Supply Officer and remitted the matter back to the 3 District Supply Officer for deciding it afresh. Thereafter again the order of the District Supply Officer came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies). Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies), the petitioner has filed the revision before the Minister, which is said to be pending. 4. In the light of the pendency of the said representation before the Minister, we are inclined to allow this petition and accordingly we allow this petition and direct respondent no.2 to decide the said representation which is said to be pending since September, 2007, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp5597.10