Smt.Renuka Vamanrao Valimbe v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Judgment
Smt. Renuka Vamanrao Valimbe .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.R.Pitale for petitioner Mrs.S.S.Bhende for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mrs. Varsha Sawant for V.P.Sawant for respondent No.6. CORAM : A.P.SHAH AND S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATE : 18TH OCTOBER 2004. DATE : 18TH OCTOBER 2004. DATE : 18TH OCTOBER 2004. P.C.
Heard Advocates.
In the year 1995 an advertisement inviting applications for grant of fair price 2 shop came to be issued. Petitioner in her capacity as a President of proposed Cooperative Society applied for allotment of a fair price shop. Petitioner claims that her case falls under the preferential category No.5(a) of Cooperative Societies. Respondent No.4 by his order dated 28th August 1995 granted fair price shop in favour of respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 is also a cooperative society and in the list of priority, respondent No.6 was at Sr.No.2 whereas petitioner was at Sr.No.3. Petitioner challenged the order of respondent No.4 before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai. The appeal was dismissed on 4th November 1996. Then petitioner preferred revision before the Minister for State for Food and Civil Supplies which came to be dismissed vide order dated 15th January 1998.
We have heard learned Counsel for both parties. Learned A.G.P. pointed out that as on the date of submitting an application for allotment of fair price shop, petitioner was not registered as a cooperative society. Even on the date on which the order of the Additional 3 Collector (respondent No.4) was passed, petitioner’s society was not registered. Therefore, petitioner’s case was not covered under preferential category 5(a) and the authorities have rightly made the allotment in favour of respondent No.6.
Petition is accordingly dismissed. *****
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.