1 WP 6936.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6936 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. R.R.Mantri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.P.Phatake, Asstt..Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. N.S.Vidhate & Mr. Kanade, Advocates for Resp. No. 5. ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :11/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. The Respondents raised preliminary objection that the petitioner has remedy of Appeal under Clause 14 of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Licencing Order, 1966 [ For short ‘ said Order ’ ]. 2. Mr. R.R.Mantri, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the remedy of Appeal would not be available in view of the fact that it is not the case of cancelling the licence or suspending or refusing to renew the licence. Even otherwise, under clause 15 of the said Order, Revision 2 WP 6936.2011 is maintainable against any order of the State Govt. The learned counsel further submits that even if the remedy of Revision is provided, still if the order is without jurisdiction and is illegal, this Court can entertain the Writ Petition and shall not relegate the party to the alternate remedy. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. and others V/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And another reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court – 3936 and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Balasaheb Kondiram Pawar and others V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1999 ( 3 ) Mh.L.J. - 982 and submits that the remedy of Revision is no remedy in the eyes of law. 3. The matter is about the licence in the name of the partnership firm and/or in the name of a single individual. The State Govt. would be in a position to scan the documents on record. The petitioner was given opportunity of hearing by the District Supply Officer pursuant to the directions given by this Court and thereafter the order was passed. 4. In light of the fact that the order was passed after hearing the petitioner and that all the documents can be scanned by the authority exercising revisional powers, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Rule of alternate remedy is a rule of self-restraint. 3 WP 6936.2011 5. In view of the above, I dispose of the Writ Petition giving opportunity to the petitioner to approach the authority under the said Order against the impugned order. I have not dealt with the matter on the merits. All the points are kept open. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader had made a statement that the State would not release the quota in respect of the licence involved in the dispute till the next date. The statement was made on 27/09/2011, the same was continued and the same statement shall continue for the further period of two ( 2 ) weeks from today. The authority before whom the proceedings would be filed, shall take into consideration the time spent for prosecuting the present Writ Petition. No costs. Authenticated copy be given. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6936.2011 4 WP 6936.2011