JUDGMENT:- Rule, returnable forthwith.

2. Mr. Gangal, special counsel appearing along with learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Me. Warunjikar with Me. Pol for respondent No.4 waived service.

3. Heard finally by consent of parties.

4. Perused petition, affidavits and counter affidavits.

5. This petition is directed against the order dated 24 November, 2006 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai, the respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Controller of Rationing, the respondent No.2 dated 17 December, 2004 was dismissed.

Factual Matrix:

6. The factual matrix reveal that the Controller of Rationing. Churchgate, Mumbai, the respondent No.2 herein had issued an advertisement in the local newspapers dated 8 November, 2002 notifying intention to make allotment of rationing shop under Item No.207/ 02 for the area Pimpri Pada, Malad (East) Mumbai. The last date for submission of the application by the applicants desirous of having allotment of the ration shop was 31 January. 2003.

7. In response to the aforesaid advertisement, in all 22 applications were received by respondent No.2 including applications of the petitioner and respondent No.4 respectively.

8. The respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 22nd November, 2003, whereby and whereunder the ration shop was allotted to respondent No.4 treating the said respondent falling under the Category/ Priority No.6.

9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 22nd November, 2003, the petitioner, claiming to be an educated unemployed woman falling under Category/ Priority No.2, filed revision application before the Hon'ble Minister for Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra, the respondent No.3 herein; to challenge the aforesaid order dated 22nd November. 2003 passed by respondent No.2. The respondent No.3 vide his order dated 2nd June. 2004 rejected revision application of the petitioner and thereunder confirmed the order of the respondent No.2.

10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the respondent No.3 confirming the order of respondent No.2 allotting ration shop to the respondent No.4, petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.5891/2004 in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court, after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 25th August, 2004, was pleased to quash and set aside the order of the respondent Nos.3 dated 2 June, 2004 and remanded the matter with certain directions to the respondent No.2 for consideration afresh.

11. The respondent No.2 vide his order dated 17 December. 2004 claimed to have made enquiry through the regional office. Based on the report of the regional office, he found that the authorised ration shops bearing Nos.42-G/l59 and 42-G/264 were being run in two separate Galas and not in one. With the result, the allotment of the ration shop in favour of respondent No.4 was allowed lo be continued.

12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the respondent No.2 again revision application was filed by the present petitioner before the respondent No.3. The hearing on merits was completed on 19 August, 2005. However, the order appears to have been passed on 24 November. 2006. practically, after a period of 14 months whereby and whereunder the revision application filed by the petitioner came lo be rejected. With the result, allotment of ration shop in favour of respondent No.4 was confirmed. The petitioner stales that the copy of the said order was supplied to her on 5 April, 2007 i.e. after a period of 5 months. That too, after repeated approaches made to the office of the respondent No.3

13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on various amongst other grounds raised in the petition.

Shocking Fact brought on Record:

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner, duri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document