In a writ petition concerning shop allotment priorities, the High Court of Bombay reviewed the Minister's order rejecting the petitioner's claim. The court affirmed the Minister's decision as correct based on priority listings and upheld the order.
The petition is rejected.
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.
srp.
:1:
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1182 OF 2009.
Jagdish Songya Patil. ..Petitioner.
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.
---
Mr. S. S. Suryavanshi for the petitioner.
Mr. M. V. Aiya for the respondent no.5.
Mr. S. R. Nargolkar, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM: S. B. MHASE &
D.B.BHOSALE, JJ.
DATE: February 18, 2009.
P.C.
1. Heard. Perused the order passed by the Minister. We
have found that the Minister has rightly analysed the
priorities of the applicants. The present petitioner
stands at Priority No.2 in that list of priorities, and as
against this Mr. Navnit Dattu Bhakare, to whom the shop
has been allotted stands at Priority No.1. Apart from that
said Mr. Bhakare also stands in different categories and
therefore he has been selected. We do not find any fault
with the order passed by the Minister. Petition is
rejected.
(D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)
:2:
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's allocation of a shop in favor of an applicant at a higher priority can be disturbed.
Jagdish Songya Patil
The State of Maharashtra
S. B. Mhase
D. B. Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court