1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6978 OF 2009 Shamrao Marotrao Kharat, Age: Major, Occ: Agri. & Business, R/o. Makodi, Tq. Shengaon, District Hingoli. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondents. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 16TH OCTOBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the matter is taken on board for final hearing at admission stage. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. 2 for the respondents. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking continuation of stay order passed by respondent No.1 on 08-07-2009 in Revision Application No. 925/2009 preferred by the petitioner under Clause 14 of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 against the order dated 27-05-2009 passed by the District Supply Officer. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that as per order dated 08-07-2009 respondent No. 1 granted stay for a period of three months. Thereafter, he remained present in the office of respondent No. 1 on 08-10-2009 for hearing. At that time, the petitioner learnt that the Hon'ble Minister was not available on that day due to the State Legislative Assembly Elections and therefore, the petitioner filed application dated 3 08-10-2009 in the office of respondent No.1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner tendered copy of the said application dated 08-10-2009 filed by the petitioner in the office of respondent No.1. Same is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. 4. As the Revision preferred by the petitioner is pending before the respondent No.1 and in that Revision, interim order was passed on 08-07-2009 for a period of three months, and on 08-10-2009 concerned Minister was not available for hearing, considering these facts, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 to continue till hearing and final disposal of the revision preferred by the petitioner. The respondents are at liberty to decide the Revision preferred by the petitioner as early as possible. Till the decision of the Revision, interim order granted on 08-07-2009 to continue. 4 5. With this direction, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Rule made absolute in above terms. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/OCT09/wp6978.09