Jay Santoshi Mahila Bachat Ghat v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies Dept. And ORS.

dik

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9870 OF 2014 Jay Santoshi Mahila Bachat Ghat

...Petitioner

vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

.....

Mr P.A.Pol i/b M/s Pol Legal Juris for the Petitioner Mrs Vaishali Nimbalkar AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. .....

CORAM : G.S.KULKARNI, J.

06 OCTOBER, 2016 P.C. :

Heard Mr Pol, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs Nimbalkar AGP for the Respondent - State. Challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 28 February, 2013, passed by Respondent No.2 in an Revision Application filed by Respondent No.4. By the impugned order, this Revision Application filed by Respondent No.4 was allowed whereby Respondent No.4's application for transfer of ration shop was granted. The case of the Petitioner is that in asserting his rights for the ration shop in the same area, the application of the Petitioner was rejected by Pg 1 of 3

the Competent Authority by an order dated 8 November, 2012. Against this rejection, the Petitioner has approached the Revisional Authority by preferring Revision under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Distribution (Second) order, 1966. It is stated that the Revision Application is pending before the Competent Authority and final orders are yet to be passed. The contention is that the impugned order issued in favour of Respondent No.4 would cause serious prejudice to the Petitioner, in the event the Petitioner succeeds in his Revision Application, and is held to entitled for a ration shop in the concerned area.

The relief which is being sought is in anticipation that the Petitioner would surely succeed in this Revision Application. Nonetheless, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner asserts his rights in view of the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.9141 of 2005 dated 21 January, 2008 and orders passed by the Apex Court on the issue. The submission is that in the event the Petitioner succeeds, he would be left simplicitor with a paper order and that no card holders would be available to the Petitioner in view of Respondent No.4 taking Pg 2 of 3

fruits under the impugned order dated 28 February, 2013. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to consider such challenge at this stage. Reliefs are surely reliefs which are sought in anticipation of the Petitioner succeeding in the Revision Application. If the Petitioner has any legal right as being asserted in the present Petition, then surely the Revisional Authority is not powerless to consider any interim application, as the Petitioner may prefer asserting his rights. It is open to the Petitioner to approach the Revisional Authority by making appropriate prayers as permissible in law.

In the light of the above observations, no interference is called for at this stage of the proceedings. The Petitioner is at liberty to approach the Revisional Authority with all the grievances including requesting the Revisional Authority to take up early hearing. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. All contentions of the parties are kept open. ( G.S.KULKARNI J. ) Pg 3 of 3