1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4002 OF 2009 Purushottam S/o.Hiroji Dhamal and another PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.S.W.Munde, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondents/State Mr.P.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.5 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 16/09/2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition ostensibly in public interest filed by the petitioner by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to cancel the kerosene license no. 28919 standing in the name of respondent no.5 at village Sonkhedi, Tq.Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon, by quashing and setting aside the order dated 13/04/2009 passed by the District Supply Officer, Jalgaon. 2. The other reliefs which the petitioner has sought for are in respect of ad interim relief except the relief at prayer clause E to the petition wherein the petitioner prays that the kerosene be supplied through any 2 other agency. 3. At this juncture we may briefly refer to the order impugned in the present petition which is passed by the District Supply Officer, Jalgaon. The aforesaid order states that license of the 5 th respondent had been suspended for the period of 3 months and thereafter the license was restored. 4. It appears that on account of certain irregularities in the conduct of the fair price shop, the petitioner had submitted certain representations. It also appears that thereafter the license of the petitioner came to be suspended and thereafter by impugned order the license came to be restored. It also appears that an inquiry had been conducted and an inquiry had been ordered afresh. It also appears that the inquiry is going on and action in accordance with Law would be taken. All this appears to have been stated by the respondents in their affidavit in reply. At para no.4 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the respondents had received complaints in respect of respondent no.5 and in order to ascertain the genuineness of the complaint, the license of the 5 th respondent was suspended. During the inquiry, the Tahsildar had reported on 02/03/2009 about the irregularities of the fair price shop run by respondent no.5. It is further stated at para no.4 that “in view of this situation, appropriate action will have to be taken against respondent no.5 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and the action will be taken according to the norms laid down”. At para no.5 of the affidavit in reply it is stated that an alternate arrangement has been made of supplying the kerosene attached to the 3 shop of respondent no.5 It is further stated that the inquiry would be conducted as per the norms laid down and action in accordance with Law would be taken. 5. Upon perusal of the affidavit in reply, we find that the complaint of the petitioner has been attended to by the respondent. The respondents have initiated inquiry. Statement in the affidavit in reply that action in accordance with Law against respondent no.5 is taken is accepted by us as an undertaking to the Court. We also accept the statement of respondents that an alternate arrangements have been made for providing kerosene through another outlet so as to ensure that the villagers do not suffer. 6, In the light of what is stated by us above and in the light of affidavit in reply, the reliefs which have been prayed for by the petitioner in this petition do not survive for consideration. In the light of the fact that the reliefs do not survive for consideration, we are incline to dismiss this petition. Accordingly this petition is summarily dismissed accepting the statement made by the respondents with no order as to costs. The amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp4002-09