*1* wp.9437.10.926.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9437 OF 2010 Sadashiv Bhagwan Lengre. ..Petitioner -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Dilip Bodke with Mr.B.A.Lawate, for the Petitioner. Mr.M.V.Aiya, for the Respondent No.4. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 24th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Minister for Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Maharashtra dated 07.11.2010 cancelling the allotment of the fair-price shop in his favour and accepting the application of the Respondent No.4 and sanctioning the shop in its favour. 2 The Respondent No.4 is the Mahila Bachat Gat. It is not disputed that it ranks at Serial No.1 in priority. The Petitioner claimed priority Nos.2 and 4. He claimed the shop as being physically disabled, educated unemployed and belonging to the Nomadic Tribe. He had already been given the shop. When the allotment was questioned, the Petitioner was heard and the Respondent No.4 was not heard. Therefore, the order of the Minister was set aside and it was directed to rehear the parties. On remand, the Minister heard the parties and held that the Respondent No.4 is ranking higher in priority and it satisfies the requirement stipulated by the advertisement and the relevant guidelines. *2* wp.9437.10.926.sxw Accepting this and on being satisfied that the Respondent No.4 has necessary capacity and capability, the shop has been sanctioned in its favour. 3 Mr.Bodke, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, while questioning the order of the Minister, argued that the advertisement in this case was issued on 04.02.2008. Last date for submission of the applications was 15.03.2008. The Respondent No.4 was not even registered, but only had permission to open the bank account which permission was given on 13.03.2008. In such circumstances and relying upon the contents of the letter which has been issued in favour of the Respondent No.4 by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, “L” Division, New Mumbai, it is urged by Mr.Bodke that the Respondent No.4 does not satisfy the criteria which has been prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2007. 4 It is not possible to accept these contentions of Mr.Bodke. A perusal of the order passed by the Minister shows that the Minister has evaluated the case of both parties. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, the Minister holds that he may be a physically disabled candidate belonging to the Nomadic Tribe, however, he does not satisfy the criteria of being educated unemployed. Further, it has been held by the Minister that the Credit Society has addressed a letter stating that the documents which are stated to have been issued by the said Credit Society to the Petitioner are not genuine and are forged. While evaluating the case of the Respondent No.4 for allotment, the Minister has held that it is admittedly a Mahila Bachat Gat. It ranks first in priority. It has shop premises in its possession. It has financial assistance from the Raigad District Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. and there is a letter dated 15.03.2008 which is termed as “Hamipatra” guaranteeing the financial assistance to the *3* wp.9437.10.926.sxw Respondent No.4. Admittedly, the Respondent No.4 is a group of women working for self assistance and development. 5 The Deputy Registrar may have issued a letter dated 13.03.2008 granting permission to open the bank account, but there is no prohibition in the guidelines or Government Resolution that such an application by the Bachat Gat cannot be considered. The requirement is not that it should be registered, but it should have financial capacity to run the shop and that is how the Government Resolution reads. Having satisfied that the group of women is capable of taking care of themselves and they can manage the shop or a commercial venture and the Respondent No.4 is ranking high in priority, the allotment has been made in favour of the Respondent No.4 by the authorities. I do not see as to how such an exercise can be termed as vitiated by errors apparent or perverse so as to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 6 Reliance that is placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.9708/2010 (Smt.Chaya Jagan Kale v/s State of Maharashtra and others) dated 17.02.2011, is misplaced because in that case on facts it has been found that the Petitioner was claiming to be falling in priority Nos.2, 3 and 4. The Petitioner was not considered as an educated unemployed falling in priority No.3. Even there, the physical disability certificate was doubted. In such circumstances, the claim of the Petitioner therein was not entertained. Thereafter, there are certain guidelines which have been issued as to how the quasi-judicial orders should be made. It is not the case of Mr.Bodke that the quasi-judicial order in this case has not been made in the manner provided in the guidelines. Therefore, reliance on this decision is misplaced. 7 As a result of the above discussion, I find no merit in this petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. *4* wp.9437.10.926.sxw 8 At this stage, Mr.Bodke prays for continuation of the ad- interim order. There is ad-interim order which itself clarifies that if the order of allotment is not acted upon, the same shall not be acted upon for a period of two weeks. Now it is shown on record that the fair price shop has already been established and started functioning. This fact may be disputed by the Petitioner, but finding that the Petitioner’s claim itself is not acceptable, there is no reason to continue the ad-interim order which has been made in this petition. The prayer is rejected. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)