1 MMJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.630 OF 2010 Venus Petro Chemicals (Bombay) Pvt Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. The Controller of Rationing & Director of Civil Supplies & Anr. Mr. D.V. Merchant Senior Advocate with Ms. Nish Valani for the Petitioner Ms Smita Gaidhani AGP for Respondent/State Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar for Intervenor CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 13th APRIL, 2010 P.C. : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 25th February 2010, passed by respondent No.1 under the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop(Acquisition, Sale, Storage and prevention of use in automobiles) Order 2000 (for short the licensing order 2000). Clause 22 of the said order provides that any person aggrieved by any Order of a Licensing Authority made under clause 11, 12, 13 or 14 of 2 this order may appeal in Mumbai and Thane Rationing area to the Government and elsewhere to the Commissioner of the Division. Therefore, as statutory remedies are provided under the licensing order of 2000 itself, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction as the authorities are not taking a final decision in the matter and the orders which are passed by the Appellate Authority are not respected by the Controller of Rationing Authority i.e. respondent No.1. It has been pointed out to us that on earlier occasion when the order was passed, an appeal was preferred. The Hon’ble Minister remanded the matter to respondent No.1 for re- examining the same but respondent No.1 did not comply with the Appellate Authority’s order and has again passed the same order by ignoring the directions given in the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister. It is submitted that it should not happen that if the petitioners prefer an appeal against the order impugned in this petition, it would meet the same fate i.e. the matter is remanded back to respondent No.1. 3 3. In so far as the aforesaid grievances of the petitioners are concerned, it is submitted that the authorities are notified in the order to deal with the subject matter in accordance with law. This Court cannot lay down any guidelines to the authorities, including the Appellate Authority in the order as to how they should deal with the matter, but the authorities are expected to keep in mind that whenever the matter is referred to them for adjudication, it should decided the case on merits and that the decision particularly taken at the Appellate level should be final in all respect. The petitioners can very well apprise the Appellate Authority which is the State Government, about the difficulties faced by them due to the failure on the part of respondent No.1 in not complying with the earlier order and it is for the Appellate Authority to take appropriate action against respondent No.1, who is an officer working under the State Government and within the purview of the Appellate Authority. With these observations, we are dismissing the petition with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal under clause 22 of the licensing Order of 2000. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal was 4 to be preferred within a period of two weeks. We direct the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal and application for condonation of delay expeditiously as the petitioners have approached this court being frustrated by the manner in which the matter is handled by the authorities concerned. We, therefore, direct the respondents to consider the appeal of the petitioners for condonation of delay in accordance with law, keeping in mind that the petitioners had moved this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners have the statutory remedy of preferring an appeal against the impugned order. It will be open for the petitioners to make an application before the Appellate Authority to expeditiously deal with the appeal in case no interim relief is granted in favour of the Petitioner. ( J. N. PATEL, J.) ( A.P. BHANGALE, J.)