JUDGMENT Considering the nature of controversy, the writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission itself. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard Advocate Shri Tambde for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Advocate Shri Saboo for respondent No. 4. On 07/10/2005, this court has pointed out the grievance made by the petitioner before this court. Thereafter, on 27/2/2006, as nobody appeared for respondent No. 4 in spite of service and no reply was filed by the other respondents, this court observed that the matter would be decided finally at the stage of admission itself. Thereafter, the matter is being considered today. No reply is filed by any of the respondents. Advocate Shri Tambde contends that respondent No. 4 has managed to procure the allotment and is sitting tight. He contends that other respondents are also colluding with her. He invites attention to the fact that though impugned order records that hearing has taken place on 09/3/2005, there was no hearing on 09/3/2005 and petitioner has filed her reply on 16/3/2005. He further states that petitioner or her counsel have not participated in any hearing on 09/3/2005. I have perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with petition. The facts pleaded by petitioner are not at all traversed by any of the respondents. The order dated 27/5/2005 in fact appears to be repetition of earlier order passed by the respondent No. 1. Advocate Shri Tambde for petitioner makes a grievance that the matter has been remanded on earlier occasions also and respondent No. 4 is the beneficiary. From record, it is apparent that petitioner has not been given opportunity by respondent No. 1 before passing impugned order. Hence, impugned order dated 27/5/2005 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, considering the public convenience, respondent No. 4, who has already commenced fair price shop is permitted to continue with said shop for further period of three months from today. The respondent No. 1 shall hear the petitioner and respondent No. 4 afresh and shall pass fresh orders in the matter in accordance with law within said period. If the orders are not passed within said period, authorization of fair price shop in favour of respondent No. 4 shall automatically come to an end after expiry of said period. The respondent No. 1 shall hear the petitioner and respondent No. 4 afresh and shall pass fresh orders in the matter in accordance with law within said period. If the orders are not passed within said period, authorization of fair price shop in favour of respondent No. 4 shall automatically come to an end after expiry of said period. Parties to appear before respondent No. 1 on 31/01/2007 and to abide by further instructions issued by his office for hearing in the matter. Writ petition allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.