1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1395 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.1395 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.1395 OF 1998 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2582 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.2582 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.2582 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.1395 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.1395 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.1395 OF 1998 Umeshprasad Tulasi Maheto Sinha. .. Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Sharad Suryawanshi i/by P.A. Pol for Petitioner. Mr. S.D. Kadam i/by A.P. Patil for respodent no.4. Mr. D.K. Ghaisas for Respondent no. 9. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP., for Respondent/State. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2582 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.2582 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.2582 OF 1998 Saptashrungi Lokaseva Mahila Society. .. Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr. S.D. Kadam i/by A.P. Patil for petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP., for Respondent/State. 2 Mr. Sharad Suryawanshi i/by P.A. Pol for respondent no. 4. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 7TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 7TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 7TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two petitions can be disposed of by a common order as the subject matter of these petitions i.e. allotment of ration shop in the area of Neharu Nagar, Hanuman Tekdi, Kalyan Road, Bhivandi, District Thane, is the matter of dispute and the two petitioners are claiming that they are eligible to be allotted the said ration shop. 3. It is an accepted fact that till today the ration shop has not been started by the petitioner U.M. Sinha who has filed Writ Petition No. 1395 of 1998 inspite of being given an opportunity by the Controller of Rationing, Mumbai who after examining his case found that he complied with all the terms and conditions of the advertisement and is eligible for allotment of authorised ration shop. 4. It appears that the parties were aggrieved by 3 the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister on 29.1.1998 under which the Hon’ble Minister found that the matter relating to allotment of ration shop requires to be verified by the authorities and for the said purpose the order dated 25.8.1997 passed by the Controller of Rationing allotting the ration shop to Mr. U.M. Sinha was cancelled and the matter was remanded back to the Controller of Rationing for reconsideration. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner U.M. Sinha submits that inspite of the petitioner complying with all the requirements, the Controller of Rationing has not permitted him to start the rationing shop and for which he is not at fault. On the other hand, in the affidavit in reply filed by the Assistant Controller of Rationing, Office of the Controller of Rationing and Director of Civil Supplies, Mumbai, he has categorically stated that the petitioner U. M. Sinha has not responded to their communication and this contention has been supported by a communication received from the petitioner himself vide letter dated 27.6.2007 wherein the petitioner U.M. Sinha has stated that inspite of the order of allotment in his favour on 15.4.2002 he could not take steps due to domestic problems and illness of his mother. 6. We are of the view that due to passage of time which is almost of a period of 10 years, it will be in the interest of the consumers of the area for whose 4 benefit the authorised ration shop appears to be started that the respondent Controller of Rationing invites fresh applications for allotment of authorised ration shop and proceed to allot authorised ration shop to a person who is found to be eligible. The petitioners in both the petitions would be entitled to respond to the advertisement inviting applications for allotment of authorised ration shop which is the subject matter of the dispute between the parties. 7. With the aforesaid directions we dispose of both the petitions and expect the Controller of Rationing to complete the process within a period of three months, if need for authorised rationing shop still subsists in the area, in accordance with rules. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms in both the petitions. No order as to costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)