Disposed

Aruna Jalindar Surwase v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC13 Jul 2018WP/2649/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking quashment of a scrutiny sheet and award of a fair price shop licence, the High Court held that since the process had ended with a Gram Sabha resolution for a fresh start, the District Supply Officer was directed to initiate a new proclamation process, with liberty for the petitioner to participate.

What did the court decide?

The District Supply Officer is directed to initiate a fresh process by issuing a proclamation for the grant of the fair price shop licence.

Aruna Jalindar Surwase Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp2649-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2649 OF 2016

¶4

Aruna w/o Jalindar Surwase

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr. M.U. Shelke, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 4. Mr. P.G. Patil, advocate for respondent no.5.

¶10

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶11

A.M. DHAVALE, JJ. DATE : 13^th JULY, 2018

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

Petitioner is praying for issuance of writ of certiorari directing quashment of the scrutiny sheet dated 29.10.2015 prepared by respondent no. 3 for the purpose of grant of fair price shop licence to the Women Self Help group situate at vilage Kaddora, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶14

Petitioner contends that respondent no. 3 has erred in alloting equal marks to petitioner and respondent no. 6. Petitioner claims that the proposal tendered by petitioner - self help group is more meritorious and as such, additional marks ought to have been awarded to petitioner.

¶15

It must be noted that the process for allotment of ration shop was initiated in the year 2014. There were two applicants i.e. petitioner and respondent no. 6 who were awarded equal marks

¶16

{2}

¶17

wp2649-16.odt

¶18

and as such, the proposal was directed to be placed before the Gram Sabha for consideration. The Gram Sabha in its meeting dated 27.11.2015, resolved to recommend the District Supply Officer to initiate fresh process by issuing proclamation. It is informed that though the decision is recorded by the Gram Sabha in the year 2015, as a result of pendency of this petition, the District Supply Officer has not taken steps.

¶19

In the circumstances, since the process of the year 2014 has come to an end with the resolution of the Gram Sabha, it is desirable for the District Supply Officer to initiate fresh process by issuing proclamation. It would be open for the petitioner to participate in the process upon publication of the proclamation by the District Supply Officer and it would also be permissible for the respondents to consider such claim.

¶20

5. With liberty as aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

A.M. DHAVALE R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

dyb

Aruna Jalindar Surwase v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aruna Jalindar Surwase 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Jagannathrao Lungare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pradeep Bhagwanprasad Dube Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Arun Nanabhau Ubale and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rupali Sanjay Shinde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anjana Pandit Rathod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Sonerao Chittampale Vs State of Mah and Ors.