1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2062 OF 2009 Ayyub s/o Shabbir Shaikh Age: 32 Yrs. occu. Business, r/o Eidgaon Mohalla, Majalgaon, Distrcit Beed. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Deptt., Maharashtra State, Mantralaya Extension, Mumbai-32. 2) Hon’ble Minister Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Deptt., Maharashtra State, Mantralaya Extension, Mumbai-32. 3) Additional Commissioner, (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4) District Supply Officer, Beed. Ahmednagar Road, Beed, Tq. and Dist.Beed. 5) Tahsildar, Tehsil office Majalgaon, Tq. and District Beed. 6) Kishore Yuvraj Deshmukh, Age: 20 Yrs., occu. Business, Samta Colony, Majalgaon, 2 Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 7) Yuvraj Anandrao Deshmukh Age:Major, occu. Business, Samata Colony, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 8) Kalindi Yuvraj Deshmukh, Age:Major, occu. Business, Samata Colony, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate h/for Shri P.V.Neharkar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.N.B.Khandare, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5; Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for Resp.No.6; Mr.B.A.Shinde, Advocate for Resp.No.7; Mr.G.V.Patil, Advocate for Resp.No.8 ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 27th November, 2009. JUDGMENT (PER: K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.) 1) Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2) The petitioner feels to be a whistle- blower to expose grant of kerosene licenses in the family of Respondent No.6, in violation of existing policy of the Government to allot only 3 one kerosene license. However, there are three such licenses, i.e. of father, mother and son. 3) In the earlier round of litigation, being Writ Petition No.2253/2008, indeed the petitioner sought identical relief. However, by virtue of the statement made by the then Tahsildar, Majalgaon, which reads as under : “5. I respectfully say and submit that as per the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Court on 19.6.2008 in Writ Petition No. 2253 of 2008, the quota of respondent no.6 has been stopped. 6. I say that, admittedly more than 1 license has been issued in the family of Respondent no.6 and therefore, the action will be taken after following due procedure of law. Hence, this affidavit.”, the further action in the matter was not accelerated. 4) The petitioner submits that even after six weeks, the authorities did not cancel the license of the Respondent no.6 and proceeded to release the kerosene quota to Respondent no.6, which according to the petitioner, is in violation of the license terms. 5) The Writ Petition No.2253/2008 moved by 4 the present petitioner was disposed of on 21st January, 2009 in the light of the above referred affidavit in reply dated 7.1.2009, particularly paragraph 6 thereof. The learned Single Judge of this court also recorded the statement of the affiant, that more than one license had been issued in the family of Respondent no.6 and, therefore, action will be taken after following due procedure of law. 6) Mr.Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 basically attacked maintenance of the present petition on the ground that already there operates an order, and if any recourse is desired by the petitioner, he can prosecute the matter in contempt or other suitable manner. There is no locus to file the writ petition. 7) Learned Government Pleader, on instructions of District Supply Officer, who was present in the Court, makes a statement that inquiry will be initiated and same will be completed within fifteen days in relation to the illegalities or violation of the license terms by the respondent no.6. 8) The action of the learned Tahsildar or the District Supply Officer cannot be encouraged 5 as there is an order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9.4.2009 in the present petition, wherein, on hearing the Counsel and the AGP, the Division Bench observed - “We expect the learned AGP to make a statement on instructions or under oath by responsible office as to what steps are taken in the light of this assurance by the affiant in the month of January, 2009. We believe that period of three months was more than enough to take some legal steps.” In spite of such directions, unfortunately, the concerned officers showed a situation of trance and inaction, which simply needs to be condemned. We, therefore, direct the officers concerned to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and Licensing Rules, keeping in view of affidavit filed by the respondent therein in W.P.No. 2253/2008. The compliance report of this order to be submitted within three months through the office of Government Pleader. 9) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. sd/- sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp2062.09 fldr.25.11.09