This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the allocation of a fair price rationing shop to a scheduled castes tribe applicant. The court found the authorities did not act arbitrarily.
Petitioner discharged. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.445 OF 1999
Shivaji S. Jamdade ..Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
-----
Mr.P.A.Pol for Petitioner
Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4
Mr. Ashok Toraskar for Respondent No.5
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO &
S.P. KUKDAY, JJ.
DATE: 21ST APRIL, 2005.
P.C.
. The Petitioner had applied for a fair price
shop, pursuant to applications being invited. The
Collector by his order dated 12th November, 1998,
considered the various applications and the order of
priority. The application of the Consumer Society
though eligible was not considered as they were
running a shop. Under the head of Scheduled Caste/
Scheduled Tribe there were five applications. On
consideration of the said applications, Respondent
No.5 was held eligible and accordingly the Rationing
Shop was allotted in favour of Respondent No.5.
2. The Petitioner aggrieved preferred a
revision before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy
Commissioner considered the case of the Petitioner
and Respondent No.5. The Commissioner found that
the Petitioner falls in category B-6 whereas the
2
Respondent No.5 falls in B-4. She otherwise
satisfied the requirements and accordingly dismissed
the Revision Application. That is the subject
matter of the present Petition.
. It appears that interim relief was granted
which at the time of admission was vacated on 7th
December, 1998.
3. We have considered the contentions urged in
the Petition. These are purely findings of fact.
Both the Rationing Officer and the Revisional
Authority have considered the order of priority and
accordingly allotted the shop in favour of the
Respondent No.5 We do not find that the said orders
suffers from any arbitrariness or non-consideration
of relevant material.
. In the light of that Rule discharged. No
order as to costs.
(F.I.REBELLO,J.)
(S.P. KUKDAY,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the allocation of a fair price rationing shop to Respondent No.5 under the priority order was arbitrary.
Shivaji S. Jamdade
State of Maharashtra
F. I. Rebello
S. P. Kukday
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court