cp155.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 155 OF 2011 Gulabrao s/o Rangnath Gawali & others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. D.R. Irale Patil, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for the State. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 26 th APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1 Petitioners are alleging violation of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 22-3-2011. This court while dealing with the petition presented alongwith the group of petitions, directed distribution of kerosene quota to the existing license holders. This court vide subsequent order dated 8-4-2011, continued the interim order passed on 22-3-2011 for further period of six weeks. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent – authority has not released the kerosene quota in favour of the license holder cp155.11 2 / petitioner herein for the month of March 2011 and thus has violated the directions issued by this court. 2 An affidavit in reply has been presented by the Tahsildar, Jalna wherein it has been stated that the petitioners have not lifted the quota of kerosene till 20-3-2011 and as such for distribution of quota alternate arrangement has been made. It is also stated in the affidavit in reply that the petitioners were permitted to lift the quota for the month of April 2011 and since thereafter. Thus, it is contended that there is adherence to the order passed by this court by respondent – authority. 3 Petitioners dispute the contentions raised in the affidavit in reply in respect of their failure to lift the quota. Respondent has invited my attention to the order dated 4-3-2011. In view of the said order, respondent – authority has distributed the quota of kerosene for the month of March 2011. It is contended that except the petitioners all the other licensees have lifted the quota allotted in their favour. Some of the the licensees who were party to the petition were also permitted to lift the quota for the month of March 2011. There was no reason for the respondent – authority to restrain the petitioners cp155.11 3 from lifting the quota. Submission made on oath in affidavit in reply tendered by the Tahsildar, in these circumstances, shall have to be accepted. Petition presented by the petitioners is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb