- (1.)The petitioner claims to be an educated unemployed person falling under second and third priority for allotment of ration shop. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 24.11.2004 passed by the 3rd respondent i.e. the Controller of Rationing, Churchgate, Mumbai and order dated 18.8.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent i.e. Minister, Food and Civil supplies Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The 4th respondent is a person to whom the concerned ration shop is allotted.
(2.)The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent gave an advertisement in newspaper dated 25.6.2001 inviting applications from public for allotment of ration shops for the area of Prabudha Nagar, Tata Colony, Chembur. The advertisement called upon the applicants to submit their applications on or before 30.7.2001 in the office of the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner applied in the required format within stipulated period. The petitioner received an order dated 1.10.2002 passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting his application. The petitioner was informed that another applicant Kumari Sandhya Vishvanath Bhosale belonging to scheduled caste category was found qualified. The petitioner as well as the 4th respondent preferred revision applications before the 2nd respondent. By an order dated 16.1.2003, the State Minister confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent and rejected the revision applications.
(3.)It appears that in the meanwhile Kumari Sandhya Bhosale informed the Controller of Rationing that she did not want to run the ration shop allotted to her. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent by his order dated 24.11.2004 without issuing new advertisement granted ration shop to the 4th respondent. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a revision application before respondent no.2 under Clause 30 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing (Second) Order, 1966 (for short the said Order ). His revision application was dismissed by order dated 18.8.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent. Being aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner has approached this court. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said two orders.