:1: :1: :1: 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 PETITION NO. 6424 OF 2007 Smt. Kalavati Keshav Patil ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ....Respondents Mr.K.K. Jadhav, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mrs.Poonam Bhosale for respondent no.4. WRIT PETITION NO. 7085 OF 2007 Bhausaheb Kamble ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Mukesh V.Aiya, Adv.for petitioners. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mrs.Poonam Bhosale for respondent no.5. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 28TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 14.8.2007. The Revisional Authority namely the Minister of Food and Civil Supplies, State of Maharashtra has allowed :2: :2: :2: the Revision Application of one Jyoti Bhikaji Devale and rejected the Application of Bhausaheb Laxman Kamble. 2. The petitioner is one Kalavati Keshav Patil and her grievance is that the allotment of Fair Price Shop was being done pursuant to the Proclamation issued. The State of Maharashtra decided to open Fair Price Shops at 45 places in Mumbai and therefore issued an Advertisement in the prescribed form on/or before 19.5.2006. The Advertisement pertaining to Item No.11 of 2006 in the Proclamation dated 15.4.2006 is subject matter of the revisional proceedings and this Writ petition. Fourteen Applicants including the Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 to the Writ petition applied for Ration Shop. The scrutiny was undertaken by the Controller of Rationing and he held that Kalavati Keshav Patil was eligible for allotment. The Controller of Rationing rejected the Application of Jyoti Bhikaji Devali and Bhausaheb Laxman Kamble who are the petitioners. They approached the State Government in revisional jurisdiction and the Minister upon hearing the Revisional Application has set aside :3: :3: :3: the order of the Controller of Rationing recommending Kalavati Keshav Patil for allotment of the subject Ration Shop. The Minister has directed that Jyoti Devali will be entitled to the Ration shop. 3. When these petitions were placed before this court, the Learned Single Judge, Justice A.P.Desphande observed that the ground on which the allotment in favour of Kalavati Keshav Patil has been set aside is that the inspection carried out on 11.7.2006 revealed that the proposed shop premises were used for Tailoring business. Further, the finding is recorded that the petitioner is not in possession of the shop premises on the cut-off date i.e. 19.5.2006. This Court noticed that the Affidavit filed by the State Government does not disclose who carried out this inspection. The report carries a different date and the inspection is thus something which could not have been straightaway taken into consideration. 4. The record has been produced before me and both sides request that the record be perused and this court should pass appropriate orders. :4: :4: :4: 5. The Revisional jurisdiction in this case has been conferred on the State Government. The revisional Authority in this case was the Minister of Food and Civil Supplies. The case before the Minister was that Jyoti Devali applied for a Ration Shop in the category of "Educated Unemployed". She has given the requisite details with regard to the shop premises and has stated that she is in possession thereof, Whereas Bhausaheb Kamble contended that he is entitled to the Ration Shop in the category of "Ex-Service Men". He has also given details of the shop premises and contended that he is in physical possession thereof. With regard to the allotment in favour of Kalavati Keshav Patil, the argument of both Bhausaheb Kamble and Jyoti Devali is that Kalawati Keshav Patil has applied in the category of "Educated Unemployed". Her category is Number 2, but, the shop premises are being used for tailoring business. Further, on the date on which the shop premises were inspected and the cut-off date, the same were not in possession of Kalawati Keshav Patil. 6. The petitioners in these petitions are :5: :5: :5: aggrieved by the fact that the Minister without satisfying himself with regard to the compliance of the terms and conditions of allotment qua each one of them has straight-away proceeded to allot the shop premises to Jyoti Devali. Apart from urging that the Minister was concerned with the allotment in favour of Kalawati Keshav Patil and whether the same is valid and proper or not, it is urged that finding that the same is allegedly improper, the Minister could not have granted the shop premises to Jyoti Devali. More so, when Jyoti Devali and the petitioner Bhausaheb Laxman Kamble were in different priorities/categories. Whether they are similarly instituted or if the allotment is to be cancelled then the "Ex-Service Men" have to be preferred over the "Educated Unemployed" or not, are all matters which have been not been addressed at all. Further, the inspection report placed on record ought to have been scrutinised by the Revisional Authority considering the terms and conditions of the allotment and whether merely because some business is going on there, the allotment itself should be cancelled or not, has also not been clarified. :6: :6: :6: 7. Therefore, at the hearing of these petitions considering the ad-interim order of this court I indicated to both sides that it would be just, fair and proper, if both Revision Applications are reheard after the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Each one of them, considering the stay granted by this court to further steps, agreed that the Revision Applications may be decided afresh and without being influenced by the earlier orders. I suggested to Ms.Cardozo, the Learned AGP as to whether the Secretary in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs, Government of Maharashtra would hear the subject Revision Application and she submits that this court may issue appropriate directions in that behalf. 8. Considering that the Revision Application was heard by the Minister and his order is suffering from non-application of mind to vital aspects, so also, the report of the Rationing Officer being not scrutinised alongwith the inspection material, it would be fair, just and proper, if the Secretary in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs, Government of Maharashtra hears the Revision Applications :7: :7: :7: preferred by Bhausaheb Kamble and Jyoti Devali, afresh. Parties to appear before the said Secretary on 11.3.2008 and thereafter the Secretary to hear and dispose off the Revision Application and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of appearance. Petitions disposed off. *********