1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO.3140 OF 1999 1. M. W. Mishri Kotkar for Rahul Mishri Kotkar, resident of Jalna. 2. Samati Agency, through its Proprietor Ravindra R. Gahantari, resident of Jalna. 3. Chintamani Petroleum Agency, through its Proprietor Bhalchandra Chintaman Shephal, resident of Jalna. 4. M/s. Sitaram Rameshwardas and Company, through its Partner Ganesh Agrawal, resident Jalna. - - Petitioners versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Division, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 3. The Collector, Jalna. 4. Indian Oil Corporation through Depot Manager at Aurangabad. 2 5. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation through its Depot Manager at Aurangabad. 6. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, through its Depot Manager at Aurangabad. 7. IBP Corporation through its Depot Manager at Aurangabad. 8. The Union of India. 9. M/s. Harikishan Radheshyam, through their partner Rajesh s/o. Jagdishprasad Gupta, age 39 years, occ. business, Mondha, Partur, Dist. Jalna. 10. Moreshwar Kantrao Hattikar, age 44 years, occ. business, R/o. Bhokardan, dist. Jalna. - - Respondents Petitioner No.4 is deleted as per order dated 15-1-2007. Shri P. M. Shah, Senior Advocate for petitioners. Shri R. P. Phatke, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents No.1 to 3 Shri V. G. Gangapurwala, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri S. D. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.6. None present for respondent No.8. Shri A. P. Chavare, Advocate for respondent No.9. Shri V. J. Dixit, Senior Advocate for respondent No.10. 3 CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 12th October 2009 ORAL ORDER [ PER B. R. GAVAI, J. [ : 1. Heard Shri P. M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Shri R. P. Phatke, Addl. Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 3, Shri A. P. Chavare, Advocate for respondent No.9 and Shri. V. J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.10. 2. The petition challenges the Circular dated 24-2-1999 issued by the Government of Maharashtra vide which the earlier system of fixing quotas for kerosene dealers has been changed by the State Government. 3. Shri Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the State Government by the impugned Circular has changed earlier policy wherein quotas which were fixed by the Oil Companies. He submits that under the impugned Circular, State has entrusted the work of fixation of quota to the Collectors of the concerned district. He firstly submits that the State 4 Government does not have the legislative competence in as much as the matter is under the Essential Commodities Act and, therefore, under the domain of Central Government. 4. On merits, he submits that the earlier system wherein allotment was done on the basis of seniority, business capacity and past performance was working well and, therefore, there was no necessity to issue impugned circular. 5. Shri Dixit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.10, submits that the petition itself is rendered infructuous inasmuch as various other Circulars have been issued by the Government in place of the Circular impugned in the present petition. 6. In so far as legislative competence is concerned, Shri Chavare, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.9 submits that in view of the provisions of Petroleum Products (Supply and Distribution) Order, State Government is empowered to issue directions of the nature which are impugned in the present petition. 5 7. In order to ascertain as to what is the present position, we had directed respondent State Government to file affidavit explaining as to what is the present policy of the State Government concerning fixing of quota. Accordingly, an affidavit is filed by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Jalna. He submits that under Government Resolution dated 13-10-1999, the Government has replaced the policy impugned in the present petition under the new policy, the quota was to be fixed on the basis of seniority, business capacity and past performance. It is, however, submitted that in view of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3671 of 1998, the quota of urban area is reduced and quota of rural area is increased. It is further submitted that in view of the Circulars dated 3-4-2003 and 21-10-2004, the policy of making allotment on the basis of seniority, business capacity and past performance has been continued. 8. In that view of the matter, we find that in so far as second grievance of the petitioner that the earlier policy wherein allotment was to be done on the basis of seniority, business capacity and past performance of kerosene agent and under the impugned policy, the said position was not continued is concerned, is no more in existence. As a matter of fact, Government itself has adopted the 6 policy wherein it has been decided to make allotment on the basis of seniority, business capacity and past performance. The grievance in that respect, in our considered view, does not exist. Apart from that, impugned Circular has been substituted by various other circulars. As a matter of fact, petition would be rendered infructuous inasmuch as challenge to the impugned Circular is concerned. 9. Apart from that, it is a settled law that scope of interference in policy decisions is very limited. The interference in the policy decisions would be permissible only when the policy in question is palpable, arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any arbitrariness in the policy impugned, leave aside the policy being discriminatory. On the contrary, it is aimed at having equitable distribution of the petroleum products, which, in our view, is in consonance with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. That leaves us to the only question regarding legislative competence. Second proviso to sub clause (2) of clause (3) of the Petroleum Products (Supply and Distribution) Order, 1972 permits the State Government or officer authorized by the State 7 Government to issue such directions as may be necessary for equitable distribution of the petroleum products. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit with respect to the challenge on the ground of legislative competence also. 11. The petition is, therefore, devoid of substance, and as such, dismissed. Rule is discharged. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp314099