1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1283 OF 2009 Prakash s/o Pundlik Patil, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Naval Nagar, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Additional Collector, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. 3. The Tahsildar, Dhule, District Dhule ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe, with Smt. Yogita M. Kshirsagar, A.G.Ps. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 17TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the 2 consent of the parties, both the petitions are being taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. The petitioner's grievance is that he was having quota of 63 K.L. Kerosene till November 2008. His quota was reduced by 6 K.L., firstly by 3 K.L. and thereafter by 3 K.L. The petitioner alleges that reduced quota was allotted to dealer in another Taluka. The petitioner further alleges that there has been unreasonable reduction of quota. 3. The respondents filed affidavit in reply. They have justified the reduction of quota of kerosene. 4. The learned A.G.P. submits that reduction or increase in quota is based on the supply of the same from the Oil Company and demand of various parts of the District. The distribution of the kerosene is made district wise. 3 5. From the material placed on record, we find that these issues could be sorted out and settled at the local level by the concerned authority, because they are best suited to decide the needs of consumers at local level. 6. Kerosene is essential commodity, which is required by poor strata of society, so abundant care is required to be taken while administering distribution system. We find that State may contemplate to have a Grievance Cell in each district so that such issues and grievances of the dealers and consumers could be addressed to the Grievance Cell and dealt with effectively and timely. 7. The petitioner is entitled to file comprehensive representation to the Collector/D.S.O. in respect of grievance raised in the petition, within three weeks from today. In case, such comprehensive representation is received, we direct the Collector/D.S.O. to hear 4 the petitioner and pass appropriate brief reasoned order on the said representation. Order shall be communicated to the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the receipt of such representation. 8. During the course of hearing, we are informed that some such identical representations were rejected by the authorities stating that some writ petitions are pending before this Court and the issue is sub-judice. It is stated that on the identical issues Writ Petition Nos. 682, 232, 1047, 1057, 1116, 1283, 8421 of 2009 and Writ Petition Nos.7950 and 7951 of 2006 were filed, out of which, except Writ Petition Nos. 7950 and 7951 of 2006, rest of the Writ Petitions are disposed of. 9. We direct that the representations filed shall be considered independently by the authorities and shall be disposed of in the light of the facts, record and the policy adopted by the State. 5 10. Rule made absolute, in above terms. 11. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. . Authenticated copy be supplied to the learned A.G.P. Shri. V.H. Dighe to pursue the matter with the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/JUNE10/wp1283.09