1 LPA.1184/2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6786 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 241 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2010 Suresh Tukaram Humbalkar ..Appellant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. ..... Mr. S.S. Suryavanshi i/b S.B. Kalel for the Appellant. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. --- CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 16th AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1] What is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal is the order dated 9.12.2009 of the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of respondent no. 4(original petitioner). 2] The subject matter of the dispute is allotment of ration shop at Navibasti, Kabrastan, Bhiwandi, in response to the advertisement dated 4.2.2008. Respondent no.4, being handicapped person, applied from that category and hence his application fell 2 LPA.1184/2010 under under priority no.1. Appellant herein (respondent no.4 in writ petition) applied under the category for educated unemployed. Since he did not furnish supporting documents, his claim was not considered in the said category. The second respondent- the Dy. Controller of Rationing made allotment of ration shop to writ petitioner and that order came to be challenged by the appellant before respondent no.2 in the appeal (The Minister for Food and Civil Supplies Dept.). The respondent no.2 in this appeal set aside the order of allotment solely on the ground that the premises shown by the writ petitioner for running the shop was also shown by one another applicant Smt. Asha B. Kamble, and that there is no proof that the petitioner was in possession of the shop premises. 3] Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition after holding that the petitioner was in possession of the premises admeasuring 120 sq.ft., which he had obtained on lease for a period of five years under the agreement from the owner of the premises Imam Umar Sahab Shaikh. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be allowed and after setting aside the order of the Minister, the learned Single Judge restored the order of the Dy. Controller of Rationing. As against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, respondent no.4-original petitioner has filed an appeal before us. 4] Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the affidavit filed by Imam Umar Sahab Shaikh he had given part of 3 LPA.1184/2010 the premises to the writ petitioner on lease but other part was not given to Smt. Asha B. Kamble. It is further submitted that the signature of Imam Umar Sahab Shaikh on the affidavit differs from that on the leave and licence agreement which is produced by the writ petitioner before the responden-authority. 5] Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any substance in the appeal. In the first place when the owner of the premises (Shri Imam Umar Sahab Shaikh) has filed the affidavit indicating that a part of the premises being area measuring 120 sq.ft. has been given to the writ petitioner on lease for five years under the agreement, it is of no consequence whether the other part of the premises was or was not given to Smt. Asha Kamble. As regards the allegation about variation in the signature, such question cannot be examined in this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, especially when the affidavit filed by Shri Imam Shaikh is not challenged. 6] We do not find any merit in the appeal, and same is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the civil application does not survive, and is disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 4 LPA.1184/2010