Gurunath Kanha Bhagat vs State of Maharashtra and Others

M.L. Pendse, J.—There is no merit whatsoever in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the legality of order dated December 2, 1985 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Food and Civil Supplies Department. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate how frivolous is the petition.

The Controller of Rationing, Bombay had invited applications for a new authorised ration shop at village Kon, Taluka Bhivandi of Thane District. 3 applications were received and on scrutiny Smt. Mhatre was allotted the shop by the order dated July 27, 1984. The petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Secretary to the Government to challenge allotment in favour of Smt. Mhatre. The Revision Application was allowed and the proceedings were remanded for fresh consideration. After holding a fresh enquiry, the Controller of Rationing allotted the shop to the petitioner by order dated June 13, 1985. Thereafter Smt. Mhatre preferred a Revision Application before the Deputy Secretary. The Deputy found that neither Smt. Mhatre nor the petitioner was entitled to the allotment and directed that fresh advertisement should be issued inviting applications. The order of the Deputy Secretary is under challenge.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Secretary was in error in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to allotment. It is impossible to accede to the submission. It is not in dispute that both on the filing of the application and on the date of allotment by the controller the petitioner was employed in National Rayon Corporation Ltd. The petitioner sought voluntary retirement from service only after allotment of the shop. In the application for allotment the petitioner claimed that he was unemployed educated person and obviously that statement was false. The petitioner being in employment both on the date of the application and on the date of allotment, the order of the Controller allotting the shop was clearly misconceived and the Deputy Secretary was justified in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to allotment. A faint attempt was made to urge that the lock-out was declared in National Rayon Corporation Ltd. and, therefore, the petitioner was deemed to bg an unemployed educated person. The submission is merely required to be stated to be rejected. Mr. Yande learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents informs that in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Secretary fresh advertisement was issued and the applications were invited but final order of allotment could not be passed because of the interim relief secured by the petitioner in the present petition. As the petition is now being dismissed the Controller is at liberty to allot the shop to appropriate person. The petitioner is not entitled to run the shop even for a day.

Accordingly petition fails and rule is discharged with costs.