wp1497.08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1497 OF 2008 Lahu s/o Nivrutti Nagargoje, R/o-Yewalwadi, Tq-Patoda, Dist-Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Tahsildar, Patoda, Dist-Beed, 2) The Sub Divisional Officer, Beed, Dist-Beed, 3) The District Supply Officer, Beed, Dist-Beed, 4) The District Collector, Beed, Dist-Beed. 5) The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, 6) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Food Grain, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ...RESPONDENTS. wp1497.08 2 ... Shri. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel i/b. Shri. L.V. Sangit Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. RESERVED ON : 14TH JANUARY, 2011. PRONOUNCED ON : 24TH JANUARY, 2011. ORDER [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner submits that in pursuance to a proclamation issued by the District Collector, Beed on 30th September 1998, he filed application for grant of licence of fair price shop at village Yewalwadi, Tq-Patoda, Dist-Beed. Pursuant to the order passed on 15th July 2002, the Petitioner deposited security deposit towards fair price shop and retail kerosene licence in the wp1497.08 3 sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand). The Petitioner was granted licence of fair price shop on 19th September, 2002 and since then the Petitioner is running a fair price shop. By communication dated 6th May 2005, the Tahsildar, Patoda passed an order that the supply of kerosene to Petitioner and other licence holders who were running fair price shops, would be stopped as such licence holders do not have licence to distribute kerosene. The Petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. By an order dated 31st January, 2008 the appeal filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed, as not maintainable. The Petitioner preferred present Writ Petition on 22nd February, 2008. 3. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed affidavit in reply. In para 14 and 15 of the reply, the deponent contends that: wp1497.08 4 "14. In reply to para nos. 16 to 19 I most respectfully say and submit that the petitioner has granted only licence of fair price shop and at the time of accepting deposit against fair price shop, an amount of Rs.3000/- is accepted. The acceptance of Rs.2000/- in addition to the licence fees of fair price shop does not give any right in favour of the petitioner to say that this fees is accepted towards licence fees of retail kerosene licence. 15. Even if any additional amount is accepted by mistake, same can be refunded to the concerned. The petitioner's excess amount of Rs.2000/- will be paid to him as it is not against the licence fees of retail kerosene licence. The distribution of kerosene by the petitioner was for temporary wp1497.08 5 arrangement and not as licence holder. I further say and submit that for issuance of retail kerosene licence Government has to issue proclamation for calling application and as per priority eligible applicant will have to be issued retail kerosene licence. The Sub Divisional Officer, Beed has only issued proclamation for fair price shop and not for distribution of kerosene licence. Excess amount of Rs.2000/- accepted by the department is by mistake and the concerned officer is called upon to explain as to why amount is accepted. If authorities get satisfied that reply filed by the concerned officer is not satisfactory, disciplinary action will be initiated against him." 4. The Petitioner filed rejoinder to the affidavit in reply. wp1497.08 6 5. Shri. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Petitioner has been distributing kerosene through his fair price shop since the year 2002. Though he had deposited security deposit in respect of distribution of kerosene, the authorities did not grant licence to the Petitioner to distribute kerosene. Reference was made to several Government Resolutions, more precisely, Government Resolution dated 3rd November, 2007, where-under the State Government had adopted policy to allot licences to distribute kerosene to self help groups of different categories. The learned Senior Counsel referred to some of the orders passed by this Court, wherein Petitions raising identical issues, were admitted. The learned Senior Counsel therefore, submits that the Government may go ahead with the policy, but the distribution of kerosene through fair price shop of the Petitioner, shall not be stopped and the Petitioner shall be granted licence to wp1497.08 7 distribute kerosene. 6. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondents, submits that the Petitioner was not holding licence to distribute kerosene. At the relevant time, considering the exigency and circumstances, certain licence holders who were running fair price shops, were permitted to distribute kerosene, which is essential need of the villagers in their day to day life. The learned A.G.P. submits that in fact acceptance of Rs.2000/- as deposit from the Petitioner was itself mistake on the part of the authorities concerned and enquiry in that regard has already been initiated. Even otherwise, voluntary deposit by the Petitioner would not entitle the Petitioner to claim as of right, grant of licence to distribute kerosene. 7. This Court had occasion to consider identical issue in batch of Petitions, being Writ wp1497.08 8 Petition No.698 of 2008 and other connected matters. By an order dated 21st December, 2010 this Court (CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ.), the said Writ Petitions raising identical challenge, were dismissed. We may reproduce some of the Paragraphs of the said Order being Paragraph Nos. 13, 14 and 15, which read as under: "13. The State Government filed an application in the Supreme Court in the matter of P.I.L. i.e. in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India and others, after disposal of the Writ Petition by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. By an order dated 10th May, 2010, the Apex Court as an interim measure, permitted the wp1497.08 9 State of Maharashtra to issue license for fair price shops and kerosene retail shops to self help group, Gram Panchayat, Co-operative Society, Women/Co-operative Society run by women, Ex-Army Co-operative Society, Handicapped, Widows by giving greater priority to the widows of Army men. 14. The State urges that they be permitted to implement the order passed by the Apex Court in its letter and spirit, so that the distribution of essential commodities is done in more appropriate manner by involving various sections of society, by extending helping wp1497.08 10 hand to the rural population. We find that there is laudable object behind the policy framed by the State Government which is reflected through the Government Resolution dated 3rd November, 2007. 15. In the light of the facts of the case, the pendency of Public Interest Litigation before the Apex Court and the Order passed by the Apex Court, we are not inclined to entertain these Petitions. The Writ Petitions are dismissed." 8. For the reasons stated in the said Order, we are of the view that present Petition could also be disposed of. wp1497.08 11 9. In the facts of the case, we find that the Petitioner does not have vested right to seek directions to the Authorities to supply kerosene to the Petitioner, who is running fair price shop. It is admitted position that the Petitioner does not possess licence to deal in kerosene. The Petitioner is not the only person and in cases of others too, the Authorities have taken similar action. The State Government had devised a policy to allot licences to deal in kerosene, to self help groups including women's self help groups. In the light of the Judgment delivered by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 303 of 2008 and the Order passed by the Apex Court in Public Interest Litigation pending before the Apex Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India and others, we do not find any unreasonability in the stand adopted by the State Government. There is no merit in the Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. wp1497.08 12 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner prayed for maintaining status quo in respect of distribution of kerosene for a period of three months from today. We direct the State Government and its Authorities to maintain status quo in respect of distribution of kerosene through the fair price shop run by the Petitioner, for a period of three months from today. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp1497.08