1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1047 OF 2009 Nandlal Bansilal Bidada, Kerosene Dealer, Age: 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Lamjana, Tq. Ausa, District Latur. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Food and Supply, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Collector, Latur, Dist. Latur. 3. The District Supply Officer, Latur, Dist. Latur ...RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1057 OF 2009 Gopal s/o Badrinath Bidada, Kerosene Dealer, Age: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Ausa, District Latur. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2 Through its Secretary, Department of Food and Supply, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The District Supply Officer, Latur, Dist. Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. 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 consent of the parties, both the petitions are being taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. The petitioners are the semi whole sale dealers in kerosene. The grievance of the petitioners is that their quota of kerosene is reduced. They have been singled down. Out of 17 3 persons, in case of five dealers, their quota was reduced. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the reduction of quota of kerosene is required to be based on rational and reasonable basis. The action of the authority is unreasonable. The business of the petitioners is affected and consumers are also put to detriment. 4. These petitions are pending since 2009. Unfortunately, no reply is filed. We cannot afford to wait further and expect some reply by the respondents. 5. In the facts of the case, we observe that, in case, the petitioners make comprehensive representations within four weeks addressed to the Collector on the issue raised in the petitions, we direct the Collector/D.S.O. to hear the petitioners and pass appropriate brief reasoned order, after scrutinizing the record. This 4 exercise shall be completed within six weeks from receipt of the communication. Order shall be communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners shall co-operate with hearing. 6. 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. The Registry has informed us 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. 7. 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. The authorities shall pass brief reasoned order. The 5 order shall be communicated to the concerned. 8. Rule made absolute, in above terms. 9. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/JUNE10/wp1047.09