Allowed

Rafiuddin Nasiruuddin Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Dec 2017WP/2812/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad quashed an administrative order that refused to consider the petitioner's application for a Fair Price Shop because only a Self Help Group was available. The Court held that when a Self Help Group is unavailable, the department must allot the shop based on statutory priorities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the 1992 Maharas

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication was quashed and set aside. The respondent was directed to follow the statutory priorities laid down in the Essential Commodities Act and the 1992 order if no Self Help Group

Rafiuddin Nasiruuddin Shaikh Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

wp2812.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2812 OF 2016

¶5

RAFIUDDIN NASIRUUDDIN SHAIKH
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr.U.R. Aute, Advocate h/f Talekar & Associates for the
petitioner

¶8

Mr.S.W.Mundhe, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State

¶9

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATED :07.12.2017

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

.In Ward No.41 of Aurangabad city the

¶12

communication is issued to the petitioner stating that
the Fair Price Shop has to be allotted to Self Help Group
Only. The petitioner's application cannot be considered.
Mr.Aute, learned Advocate submits that normally the
condition is to allot the Fair Price Shop to the Self
Help Groups but in areas where Self Help Group are not
available for allotment of the Fair Price Shop then shops
are to be allotted as per priorities laid down under the
Government Resolution as per order dated 28.01.1992
issued by the Food and Civil Supply Department under the
provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The
impugned communication is contrary to the order dated

¶13

28.01.1992.

¶14

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is handicapped persons.

¶15

3.Learned AGP submits that the priorities have
been fixed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for
allotment of Fair Price Shop. The said priorities have to
be first exhausted and even in physical handicap category
the priorities is to the physical handicapped woman.

¶16

4.We have considered the submissions. There cannot
be dispute with the proposition that Fair Price Shop is
to be allotted to Self Help Group as per policy of the
Government. However, same policy further provides that in
case the Self Help Group is not available for allotment
of Fair Price Shop then the Fair Price Shop is required
to be allotted as per the priorities stated in the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Maharashtra Scheduled
Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) (Amendment)
order 1992. The priorities are fixed as under:

¶17

a) Consumer Co-op. Societies of Woman.

¶18

b) Other Consumer Co-op. Societies.

¶19

c) Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha at Village

¶20

Level.

¶21

d) Persons from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.

¶22

e) Freedom Fighters.

¶23

f) Ex-Service men (Including the Widow, son, unmarried daughter of serviceman till war action)

¶24

g) Physically handicapped person.

¶25

h) Project Affected Person.

¶26

i) Others.

¶27

5.Naturally, the Government is bound to adhere to
the priorities provided in the order issued under the
Essential Commodities Act. The impugned communication
does not refer to the priorities. In view of that the
impugned communication is quashed and set aside.

¶28

6.In case the Self Help Group is not available for
allotment of the Fair Price Shop in Ward No.41,
Aurangabad then respondent No.1 would follow the
priorities laid down in the order referred (Supra). In
that case they will consider the application of the
petitioner as per the priorities. The writ petition
stands disposed of. No costs.

¶29

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.]

¶30

[S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶31

VishalK/ wp2812.16

Rafiuddin Nasiruuddin Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafiuddin Nasiruuddin Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marathi Mission through Its Secretary Robert Joel Mosses Vs Vijaya Arjunrao Jadhav

Vishwabharti Sevabhavi Sanshta Thr Its President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Radheshyam Shrinivas Malpani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dayaram Dodhu Koli Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Mangala Mangan Deore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gorobakaka Nivruti Shelke Vs the District Collector Latur and Another