JUDGMENT - D.B. BHOSALE, J.:---Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Rajure waives service for respondent No. 1 Mr. Palekar waives service for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the Judgment and order passed by the 4th respondent dated 19th June, 1999, in Revision Application No. 16 of 1999, and judgment and order passed by the 5th respondent on 30th September, 2000, in the revision bearing No. Vahi.A Co-1399/493/Sr.No. 592/N.P. thereby confirming the Judgment and order passed by the 4th respondent. The Revision before the 4th respondent was filed by the 1st respondent, challenging the order of the 3rd respondent allotting fair price shop to the petitioner at village Devache Gotane (Partwadi) Taluka Rajapur, District Ratnagiri. 3. The 2nd respondent on 21st September, 1990, had published a Public notice inviting application for grant of agency of New Ration Shop at village Devache Gotane (Partwadi) Taluka Rajapur. Only one application of the petitioner was received in response to the said public notice. After the due enquiry contemplated under the provisions of Maharashtra Schedule Commodities (Regulations) Supplies Order, 1975, the 3rd respondent allotted the ration shop to the petitioner by his order dated 17th March, 1999. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the 1st respondent filed the revision application on 14th February, 1999, before the 4th respondent under Clause 24 of the Maharashtra Schedule Commodities (Regulations) Supplies Order, 1975. The said revision was allowed by the 4th respondent by his order dated 19th June, 1999, and thereby quashed and set aside the order of 3rd respondent dated 17th March, 1999. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the order of the 4th respondent dated 19th June, 1999, preferred revision before the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent confirmed the order passed by the 4th respondent by his judgment and order dated 30th September, 2000, and directed the Tahsildar, Taluka Rajapur to complete the procedure of grant of ration shop at village Devache Gotane (Partwadi) within a period of three months therefrom by issuing fresh public notice. 4. The petitioner has contended that as per the order passed by Food and Urban Supply and Consumer Protection Department dated 22nd April, 1998, and guidelines contained in the letter dated 3rd August, 1998, 30 percent of reservation has been provided in the grant of ration ship to women. 4. The petitioner has contended that as per the order passed by Food and Urban Supply and Consumer Protection Department dated 22nd April, 1998, and guidelines contained in the letter dated 3rd August, 1998, 30 percent of reservation has been provided in the grant of ration ship to women. The sub-Divisional Officer, Ratnagiri by his letter dated 27th August, 1998 had instructed the 2nd respondent to cancel the public notice dated 10th April, 1997, issued in respect of six ration shop in Rajapur Taluka. The ration shop at Partwadi was also included in the list of said six shops. However, in the lots drawn for allotting shop to women in Rajapur taluka, the shop at Partwadi was not included hence the public notice dated 10th April, 1997, in respect of Devache Gotane (Partwadi) was cancelled and fresh public notice dated 21st September, 1998, was published. In response to the said public notice only one application of the petitioner was received by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the 3rd respondent by his order dated 17th March, 1999, granted the said shop in favour of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand the 1st respondent raised objection to the effect that the Public notice issued on 10th April, 1997, in response to which the 1st respondent had made application on 30th April, 1997, for grant of ration shop was cancelled without any intimation to the 1st respondent and the public notice dated 21st September, 1998, was not given enough publicity. The 4th respondent having accepted the contention advanced by the 1st respondent, allowed the revision application of 1st respondent by his order dated 28th June, 1999, and the 5th respondent dismissed the revision of the petitioner by his order dated 30th September, 2000. 6. We, heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties for quite sometime. Perused the copy of petition and the annexures thereto. None of the respondents have filed the affidavit in reply to the petition. The petitioner is resident of village Devache Gotane, Taluka Rajapur which is geographically divided in two parts by a river. There was demand of the people from the said village to allow two separate fair price shop for the two parts of village for the convenience of the villagers. The 1st respondent is admittedly running a ration shop in the other part of the village. There was demand of the people from the said village to allow two separate fair price shop for the two parts of village for the convenience of the villagers. The 1st respondent is admittedly running a ration shop in the other part of the village. The appropriate authorities and Government of Maharashtra in view thereof, decided to allot one more fair price shop in Devache Gotane (Partwadi) i.e. other part of village. In response to the first advertisement dated 10th April, 1997, the 1st respondent had also applied. It is worth noting that said public notice was cancelled as that was issued under wrong impression that the village Devache Gotane (Partwadi) was reserved for women, which in fact was not reserved for any particular category. Therefore, it appears that public notice was issued on 21st September, 1998 in response to which the petitioner alone applied and was ultimately allotted a ration shop. The 4th respondent as well as 5th respondent while holding in favour of the 1st respondent appears to have given much weightage, to the fact that while cancelling earlier public notice dated 10th April, 1997, the 1st respondent who had applied in response to the same was not given any intimation regarding cancellation of the public notice and also to the fact that the public notice dated 21st September, 1998 was not brought to their notice and/or not given vide publicity. The learned Assistant Government Pleader in reply to our specific query told us that such Public notices are given publicity by affixing the same in the office of Tahsildar. We are also informed that it is not practice to give personal notice or intimation of cancellation of public notice to the persons or institutions interested. In view thereof it would not be correct to say that the 1st respondent has failed to not give intimation regarding cancellation of public notice dated 10th April, 1997. Moreover, we found that there was specific averment made by the present petitioner before the 4th respondent that the 1st respondent has already been conducting one ration shop at Devache Gotane (Pokathatiwadi) and therefore, the 1st respondent is not entitled for allotment of the ration shop in question as per Government Resolution. Moreover, we found that there was specific averment made by the present petitioner before the 4th respondent that the 1st respondent has already been conducting one ration shop at Devache Gotane (Pokathatiwadi) and therefore, the 1st respondent is not entitled for allotment of the ration shop in question as per Government Resolution. We, perused the orders of 4th and 5th respondent who conveniently have not made any reference to the Government Resolution referred by the petitioner and/or have failed to deal with the argument of the petitioner that under any circumstances the 1st respondent is not entitled for ration shop in question as they are already holding one ration shop in the other part of the village Devache Gotane (Partwadi). The learned Counsel for the petitioner tendered the said Government Resolution in the Court. It is marked "X" for identification. The Counsel appearing for the respondents perused the said Government Resolution dated 12th November 1991. By this Resolution the Government has laid down priority list and guidelines for the allotment of ration shops. In para 3 of the said Resolution it is specifically mentioned that the persons or institutions mentioned in para 1 may not be allotted more than one ration shop. As far as first para of the said resolution is concerned, under Clause (b) of the said para the Co-operative Societies are also covered. The 1st respondent being Co-operative Society in our opinion is also covered by the aforesaid clause of the Government Resolution dated 12th November 1991, and therefore, is not entitled for more than one ration shop. The learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for 1st respondent after perusing the said Government Resolution, did not dispute this position. Except respondent No. 1 nobody has come forward to challenge the order of 3rd respondent by which the petitioner was allotted shop in pursuant to the public notice dated 21st September, 1998. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the 1st respondent cannot be said to have been aggrieved by the order of allotment passed by the 3rd respondent dated 24th March, 1999. 7. We are also of the opinion that the allotment to the petitioner cannot be cancelled solely on the ground that the public notice dated 21st September, 1998 was not noticed by the 1st respondent or was not given enough publicity. 7. We are also of the opinion that the allotment to the petitioner cannot be cancelled solely on the ground that the public notice dated 21st September, 1998 was not noticed by the 1st respondent or was not given enough publicity. Neither the 1st respondent nor the learned Assistant Government Pleader could bring on record the exact short-comings in giving publicity to the advertisement dated 21st September, 1998. In the circumstances, we allow writ petition and quash and set aside impugned order passed by the 4th and 5th respondent. The order of the 3rd respondent dated 17th March, 1999, stands confirmed. The writ petition, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Writ petition allowed. -----