JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 25.06.1992 passed by the respondent No. 1 which is at Exhibit C only to the extent of granting additional ration shop to the respondent No. 4/Society. The petitioner herein is registered Cooperative Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960. The respondent No. 2 Collector is authorized to grant license to run ration shop. The respondent No. 3 Commissioner is a Revisional Authority under the Essential Commodities Order 1975. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No. 1 thereby granting shop to the respondent No. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the guide lines of the Government, while allotting ration shop the first preference is required to be given to the Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Societies. The petitioner is Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Society and respondent No. 4 is dairy society. Therefore, according to the petitioner while granting license to run ration shop by the Collector, same should have been granted to the petitioner. However, the Collector granted it to respondent No. 4 dairy society. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein preferred revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner allowed the revision filed by the petitioner thereby holding that, petitioner being Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Society is entitled for license to run the ration shop. 2. It appears that said order was assailed before the Minister for Food and Civil Supply, Government of Maharashtra. By order dated 25.06.1992, State Minister confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner dated 31.08.1988, however, observed in para 3 of its order that one additional shop be allotted to the revision petitioner i. e. respondent No. 4 herein. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, once the order of the respondent No. 3 is confirmed by the Minister in revision, it was not open for the Minister to grant additional shop to the respondent No. 4. The another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, second revision before the Minister was not maintainable, under the Essential Commodities Order 1975 only one revision is provided. The another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, second revision before the Minister was not maintainable, under the Essential Commodities Order 1975 only one revision is provided. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that, once the order of respondent No. 3/Commissioner has been confirmed by the Minister, in that case the Minister should not have exceeded its jurisdiction by granting additional shop to the respondent No. 4. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that, this petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that, the interest of the petitioner has been taken care of by the Minister. Another additional shop is granted to the respondent No. 4. Therefore, this writ petition may not be entertained since the interest of the petitioner has been taken care of by the Minister. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State, I am of the opinion that, the State Minister for Food and Civil Supply exceeded its jurisdiction. Once the order dated 31st August, 1988 passed by the Commissioner in revision No. 30/1988 was confirmed by the Minister, there was no question of granting additional shop to the respondent No. 4. The Minister in his order has specifically observed that, the shop which is allotted in favour of the petitioner is in accordance with State Government policy. Therefore, on examining the correctness of the order of the Commissioner, the Minister found that the order passed by the Commissioner is in consonance with the guide lines of the State Government. Therefore, once having held that the order passed by the respondent No. 3 is correct and needs no interference, it was not open for the Minister to pass the order directing the authorities to grant additional shop to the respondent No. 4, and such order/direction cannot be sustained for a moment. Therefore, the part of the order confirming the order dated 31.08.1988 passed by the Commissioner stands confirmed. However, the order of the Minister directing the authorities to allot additional shop to the respondent No. 4 stands quashed and set aside. 6. Therefore, the part of the order confirming the order dated 31.08.1988 passed by the Commissioner stands confirmed. However, the order of the Minister directing the authorities to allot additional shop to the respondent No. 4 stands quashed and set aside. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, second revision by the Minister cannot be entertained, since only one revision is provided under the Essential Commodities Order 1975, the learned A. G. P. appearing for the State is not able to firmly state before this Court about the maintainability of second revision before the State Government, in that view of the matter, I find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that, at the relevant time second revision was not maintainable. For the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is allowed to above extent. The Rule is made absolute in above terms. The writ petition is partly allowed and stands disposed of.