The court upheld the validity of fair price shop allotments made under previous orders, dismissing challenges based on unchallenged rejections of similar applications.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 11.08.2025, by which the third respondent grants the licence to run the fair price shop in favour of the fifth respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.M.Dharigond appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA Sri.T.Hanumareddy for the respondent-State, the learned counsel Sri.Srinand A. Pachhapure for respondent No.5 and the learned counsel Sri.Sadiq N. Goodwala appearing for respondent No.6.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The petitioner is a disabled person, who has disability to the tune of 50 percent, so is the fifth respondent. The two were participants in a process for allotment of a fair price shop when it was notified on 15.09.2023. Out of the candidates that were chosen, the sixth respondent was selected as the candidate eligible under the said notification and the fair price shop was allotted in favour of the sixth respondent. The fifth respondent challenges the said allotment before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority confirms the allotment in favour of the respondent No.6. This is challenged by the respondent No.5 before this Court in Writ Petition No.106605 of 2024, which comes to be disposed by an order dated 12.02.2025, directing the respondent-State to consider the allotment of the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner, if on certain terms and conditions. This is challenged by the sixth respondent before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.100131 of 2025. The Writ Appeal comes to be rejected without interfering with the order passed by this court. The result of the rejection of the Writ Appeal on 04.03.2025 is the allotment of license to run the fair price shop in favour of the respondent No.5 herein. In all these proceedings, the present petitioner was nowhere in the picture.

4. After the rejection of the Writ Appeal, and the allotment of the fair price shop in favour of the respondent No.5, a Review Petition comes to be filed in R.P.No.100027 of 2025, which comes to be rejected, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of such remedy as available in law. The petitioner then files a Writ Appeal and the subject writ petition. In the light of the subject writ petition pending, withdraws the Writ Appeal on the score that the subject petition is filed challenging the subsequent order passed by the Authority. Therefore the order dated 11.08.2025, has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.H.M.Darigond appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner's disability certificate itself is doubtful. A complaint is registered. Complaint is pending. Therefore, the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner is in violation of the order of this Court. This Court was clear in saying that if all other conditions are fulfilled, only then the allotment should be made. According to the learned counsel, the other conditions that are not fulfilled, is the disability certificate. Therefore, he would submit that in the light of the jugglery, the notification be reissued and all of them be permitted to participate in a freshly notified allotment process.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 would submit that the complaint is registered on 07.03.2025 and the Review Petition is preferred on 10.03.2025. The rejection of the application of the petitioner happens on 07.08.2023. The said rejection is not challenged. Having accepted the rejection cannot now question the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The