1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 40 OF 2002 Shri Suhas Sanvordekar, Sanvordem­Goa. ... Petitioner versus State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Panaji­Goa and ors. ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. S. Linhares, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J. & N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2005. P.C.: The short question which arises for consideration in this petition is that the petitioner's quota of kerosene was reduced from original quota of 5800 litres per month to 4300 litres by the Civil Supply Department. The petitioner's contention is that his quota of kerosene oil could not have been reduced without a show cause notice to the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance on an apex court judgment in the matter of 2 District Collector and another v. B. Suresh and others ((1999) 5 SCC 612). In that case it was held by the Apex Court that Fair price shop dealers appointed under the Order, could not claim a right to be notified when the State Government decided to bifurcate the shops and reduce the number of cards and their licences had not been cancelled and no right had been violated. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Mr. Sonak fairly submits that in view of the said Judgment no relief can be granated to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged. CHIEF JUSTICE N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.