:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.912 OF 2008 PETITION NO.912 OF 2008 PETITION NO.912 OF 2008 Janta Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Miraj ..Petitioner V/s The District Supply Officer, Sangli & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.P.A. Pol for the petitioner Mr.C.R. Sonawane,AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 CORAM CORAM CORAM : J.N.PATEL AND : J.N.PATEL AND : J.N.PATEL AND A.A. A.A. A.A. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2008 : 7TH APRIL, 2008 : 7TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is required to approach this court with a grievance that the respondents have failed to renew the licence of the petitioner mainly on the ground that it was beyond the stipulated period and therefore, he seeks a direction to the respondent to consider his case for renewal of licence. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the retail kerosene licence was granted in favour of the :2: petitioner society bearing No. 5/1988. As the petitioner has lost his original licence he made application for issuing duplicate licence by way of paying fees prescribed for the duplicate licence and in 1994 renewal fees was paid. Again on 20-7-2000 the petitioner submitted an application for duplicate licence by way of paying necessary fees. Further application was made on 27-3-2001. However, inspite of these repeated applications no steps have been taken by the respondents in the matter. 4. The stand taken by the respondents is that his application for renewal was not filed in time and therefore, it was not considered for renewal. In the affidavit-in-rejoinder the petitioner has pointed out that there is no justification in taking such stand on behalf of the respondents as in spite of repeated applications being made, the respondents failed to consider his case for renewal of licence. 5. On the basis of facts of the case, we find that no fault can be attributed to the petitioner as pleaded by the respondents in the affidavit-in-reply. The petitioner has been making repeated applications :3: by paying renewal fees but the respondents have not considered such applications and made the petitioner apply for the same repeatedly. We therefore, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and take a decision in the matter of his application for renewal within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner to communicate this order to the concerned Competent Authority. This Court makes it clear that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in making application for renewal. On the other hand lapses appear to be on the part of the respondent-authority and therefore, this should not be the reason for rejecting his application for renewal. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (J.N.PATEL, (J.N.PATEL, (J.N.PATEL, J.) J.) J.) ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)