1 LPA No.288 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Letters Patent Appeal No.288 of 2011 In Writ Petition No.6936 Of 2011 With Civil Application No.12359 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.288 of 2011 Surajmal Girdharilal Jain. .. Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. R.R. Mantri, Advocate, for appellant. Shri. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel, i/by Shri. A.G. Kanade, Advocate, for respondent No.5. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE 18th OCTOBER 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the facts of the case learned Single Judge ought to have 2 LPA No.288 of 2011 entertained the writ petition. Remedy by way of revision is not efficacious remedy. Learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgments:- (1) Secretary, Badruka College of Commerce & Arts v. State, AIR 1997 AP 179. (2) Balasaheb Kondiram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 1999(3) Mh.L.J. 982. (3) Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2120. (4) State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement, Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 3936. 3) It is submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have continued alternate arrangement of kerosene supply pending adjudication of the issues raised by the parties. 4) Learned Senior Counsel Shri. V.J. Dixit appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the appellant has efficacious alternate remedies. Disputed questions of fact are raised in the petition. In the facts of the case no interference is called for. 5) We have considered the submissions advanced, perused the judgments cited before us, the impugned orders and the material placed before us. 3 LPA No.288 of 2011 6) In the facts of the case we find that the parties have taken diverse stand in respect of kerosene licence. It is contended that, the business of kerosene supply was converted into a partnership firm in the year 1998 and kerosene supply was made in the name of the firm namely "M/s Mahavir Oil Depot, Kannad". Respondent No.5 has adopted a stand that grievance was made with the appropriate authorities in respect of his signature occurring on the partnership document. 7) Per contra, the appellant's contention is that as licence was granted in name of firm - "M/s Mahavir Oil Depot" in the year 1998 the authorities ought to have acted accordingly. 8) Considering the facts, the pleadings and the issues raised by the parties, learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellant could resort to alternate remedies. We do not find any error in the view of the learned Single Judge. 9) The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. Civil Application No.12359 of 2011 stands dismissed. 4 LPA No.288 of 2011 10) At this stage, learned counsel Shri. Mantri submits that for resorting to appropriate alternate remedies statement made by learned Assistant Government Pleader on 27-9-2011 before the learned Single Judge, which was continued for a period of two weeks, be further continued. Learned Senior Counsel Shri. V.J. Dixit submits that in the light of ensuing Diwali festival some arrangement is required to be made so that consumers are not deprived of supply of kerosene. The counsel opposed the prayer. 11) We direct the respondents-authorities to make alternate arrangement in view of the ensuing Diwali festival for supply of kerosene quota which was allotted in favour of the parties. The operation of the statement made by learned Assistant Government Pleader on 27-9-2011 before the learned Single Judge is continued for a period of two weeks from today. Authenticated copy be given to the counsel for the appellant. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl