-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.8499 of 2007 Shri Abdull Gani Abdul Azia Godaliya ..Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Shri P.A.Pol for petitioner. Shri R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 29th February, 2008 29th February, 2008 29th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Minister of Food and Civil Supplies on the revision application preferred by respondent no.4 before me. The Minister proceeded on the basis that respondent no.4 is aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller of Rationing on 29th March, 2005 allotting the ration shop to the present petitioner. 2. The grievance of the present petitioner is that the revisional applicant (respondent no.4 before me) had never challenged the allotment and in fact he has never questioned the decision of the Controller allotting the shop to the present petitioner. Yet, the revision -2- application was heard and that too in absence of the present petitioner. The same was allowed and the allotment in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by an exparte order. 3. The original revisional applicant (respondent no.4 to this writ petition) has filed an affidavit on 8th February, 2008 in which he has made a statement that although he applied for ration shop that was pursuant to the advertisement dated 8th November, 2002 (item no.69/2000). However, since he could not fulfil the conditions of the premises being made available for running the ration shop he withdrew his application for allotment and never prosecuted the same. He was not aggrieved by any decision much less the decision to allot the ration shop to the present petitioner. He says that he is unaware of any revision being filed by him nor was he given any notice of hearing of the revision application. He has stated that he did not attend the office of respondent no.2. 4. Since the petitioner has pointed out that respondent no.4 has no grievance on the basis of the affidavit of respondent no.4, statements in which are uncontroverted, then, the order under -3- challenge is patently unsustainable. The same is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed accordingly. The allotment of the ration shop in favour of the petitioner if subsisting shall continue without any interference or obstruction by the State Govt provided the petitioner complies with all terms and conditions. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)