1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6323/2006 (Babarao Bhivaji Mahakulkar vs. State of Maharashtra & ors) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 29th September, 2008 = Shri S.R.Deshpande, Adv. for the petitioner. Smt. S.S.Wandile, A. G. P. for R-1 to R-4 Shri F.T.Mirza, Adv. for Respondent No.5 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by State Government on 8.7.2005, as also the order dated 11.7.2005 by which the State of Maharashtra refused to review the order dt. 8.7.2005 on the ground that there was no power to review the same. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a licensee dealing in semi-wholesale kerosene and the license number was 1/90. The petitioner did not receive any quota of kerosene since the year 1990. The petitioner requested for releasing the kerosene quota, to the competent authority, from time to time. However, the same was not released in favour of the petitioner. On 3.12.2001 the petitioner applied for renewal of the license till December, 2004 by paying the necessary license fees. The District Supply Officer, however, by order dated 3.11.2003, informed the petitioner that the license could not be renewed as there 2 was no record to show that the license of the petitioner was renewed after 1990 and also because of the fact that the petitioner had not received the kerosene quota since grant of the license in the year 1990. Certain proceedings were filed by the petitioner before the various authorities under the provisions of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966, and ultimately by order dated 1.11.2004 the District Supply Officer, Yeotmal, held that the license No. 1/90 be renewed till 31.7.2007. In pursuance of the said order dated 1.11.2004, the Collector also directed that the kerosene quota be released in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 5 filed an appeal against the order dated 1.11.2004 and the State Government allowed the appeal by the impugned order dated 8.7.2005. The order passed by the District Supply Officer on 1.11.2004 was set aside by the order dated 8.7.2005. The review application filed by the petitioner before the State Government was also dismissed by order dated 11.7.2005 on the ground that the State Government had no power to review the order dated 8.7.2005. The orders dated 8.7.2005 and 11.7.2005 are impugned in the instant petition. 3 3. Shri S.R.Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Government failed to consider that the license of the petitioner was renewed from time to time and the petitioner had duly paid the license fees after the grant of license since the year 1990. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the grievance of the petitioner was not pertaining to the non-renewal of license, but pertains only to the non-supply of the kerosene quota to the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the State Government was competent to take up the review application and the order dated 11.7.2005 rejecting the review application on the ground of absence of jurisdiction is clearly illegal and is liable to be set aside. 4. Mrs. S.S.Wandile, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 supported the orders passed by the State Government. It is submitted on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that the order dated 8.7.2005 was passed by the State of Maharashtra in view of the direction of the Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 5236/04. It is further submitted on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that though the petitioner was granted a license in the year 1990, the license of the petitioner was not 4 renewed from time to time. There were no entires in the office record to show that the kerosene license of the petitioner was renewed after it was granted in the year 1990. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that since grant of semi wholesale kerosene license in the year 1990, no kerosene quota was ever received by the petitioner for distribution. It is submitted on behalf of Respondents that the copies of challans required for renewing the license were also not produced before the State Government at any time. In absence of any entries of renewal of license and in absence of any order of renewal of license, according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the State Government rightly held that the license of the petitioner was never renewed. It is submitted that in this background the orders passed by the District Supply Officer on 30.10.2004 and the Collector on 1.11.2004, were set aside. The learned Assistant Government Pleader sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Shri F.T.Mirza, learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 also supported the orders passed by respondent no.1 on the similar lines. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the 5 parties and also perused the impugned orders and other necessary documents. It is apparent from the record that though the semi wholesale kerosene license was granted to the petitioner in the year 1990, the petitioner had not received any quota of kerosene after the grant of license. There is nothing on record to show that the license of the petitioner was renewed from time to time. In this background, the State Government rightly held that the license of the petitioner could not have been renewed after the lapse of 12 years, on consideration of the Government policy for renewal of the license. Before this Court also, the petitioner has not filed any orders showing the renewal of his license. It, therefore, cannot be said that the State Government was not justified in passing the order dated 8.7.2005 by which the orders dated 1.11.2004 and 31.10.2004 were set aside. The State Government was further justified in rejecting the review application by the order dated 11.7.2005, as on a reading of the provisions of Clause 15 of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966, it is apparent that the orders passed by the State Government could not be reviewed. 7. There is no error whatsoever in the impugned orders 6 passed by the State Government, muchless a jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit