1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7427 OF 2007 Natwarlal s/o Bandusa Jain, R/o-Dahiwel, Tq-Sakri, Dist-Dhule. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) District Supply Officer/ Additional Collector, Dhule, Dist-Dhule, 3) Tahsildar, Sakri, Tq-Sakri, Dist-Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7426 OF 2007 Murlidhar s/o Nimba Gawali, R/o-Kharadbari, Tq-Sakri, Dist-Dhule. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 2 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) District Supply Officer/ Additional Collector, Dhule, Dist-Dhule, 3) Tahsildar, Sakri, Tq-Sakri, Dist-Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. D.S. Bagul Advocate for Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions. Shri. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondents in both the Writ Petitions. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 27TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioners' kerosene quota has been 3 unreasonably reduced in the last few years. Even recently the quota has been reduced without there being any justifiable reason. The counsel placed reliance on a Government Circular dated 3rd April 2003 in support of his submission that the Government should follow uniform policy in respect of allotment of kerosene quota to their licensees. 3. Shri. Dighe, learned A.G.P. submits that demand of kerosene is ever increasing and in contrast the supply from the Central Government to the State is not that promising; therefore there is bound to be variation in the allotment of kerosene quota. No constant quota can be maintained in respect of license holders. 4. As a matter of policy, we find that the fact of reduction of quota and increase in it should be brought to the notice of the higher Authorities first. The issue shall be dealt with at that level as it relates to implementation of the policy by the State. 4 5. Shri. Bagul, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that now the State has implemented one more scheme under the caption of "assured supply of kerosene". 6. We are of the opinion that if the Petitioners are aggrieved then the Petitioners may approach first the Authority which finalises the allotment of kerosene quota and thereafter to the higher Authorities, if required. With these observations, Writ Petitions stand disposed of. [A.V. POTDAR, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/APR10/wp7427.07