^ HIGH CQURT QF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR WR!T PETITIONNO. 485 OF 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 2. 3. 4. 5. Surya Prakash Idhan Purti Shramik Samiti Maryadit, through Presldent Haridas Dehariya, S/o Shri Dtanwaran Dehariya, aged about 57 years, Bhatapara, District Raipur. Versus The State <rf Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Food^and Civit Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Raijwr, DKS Building.Raipur. Collector, Raipur. t-^pd Controiler, Food Offlce, Ralpur, Sub CSvisional Officer, Revenue, Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG). Assistant Food OfRcer, Raipur (Rural), CG.Raipur. (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Consfitution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'Me Shri Satish K. ^nihotri, J. Present:- ShriAwadh Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORDERrORAU (Passed on this 30th day of June, 2009) Heard leamed counsel for the parfes. 2) By this petition, the petitioner, a cooperativesociety, seetes to challenge suppty of kerosene oil, which is less than 1200 litws per month, on the ground that the same is contrary to the circular dated 7-4-2(X)1 . 3) Shri Tripathi, learned counsel appearing fcr ths petitioner, submite ftat the petitioner soeiety was entitled t6 1200 litere ( .6 drum) kerosene oil for distribution to the public in the locality. Subsequently, without assigning any rhyme and reason the supply of kerosene oil has been redueedto 1000 liters. Leamed counsel further submits that once the petitioner has acquired a rjght under ihe circular dated 7-4-2001 the same cannot be taken away or infringed subsequently by reducing the supply. The other areas are geUang 1200 liters keroseneoil. ; l 4) Per contra, Shri Bhatia, learned counsel for appearing for tte Stete, submits that the petitioner was^never granted any riglit to have suppls? of minimum 1200 liters kerosene oil on the basisof letter dated 7-4-2001 -rz; ^ •^. yowri -^ (Annexure - P12). Supply of 1200 liters kerosene oil was a maximum limit depending on the requirement of the area and availabiiity of kerosene oii. Learned counsel placed reliance on a subsequent letter dated 23-7-2SXM pointing out fhat it has been found that in rural areas, supply of kerosene oil was not sufficient and, assuch, in urban areas the supply has been reduced and thesupply has been increased in the rural areas. 5) i have heardleamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadtngs and the docuraents appended thereto. 6) It appears that the petitioner was never assured supply of minimum 1200 liters ( .6 drum) kerosene oil per month. Bare perusai ofthe letter dated 7-4-2001, it is clear that.the total timit of suppiy has been flxed, not the minimum supply and that tpfe in erder to have uniformity in supply to the ;-'''< • .' . .. ^ - ___/.. , districts and tahsits as the letter states that in lieu of 25%, the hawker may be supplied maximum 1200 liters ( .6 drum) kerosene oil per month. Thereafter, it appears that on account of iack of did:ribufion in certainareas, letter dated 23-7-2004 was issued. By this letter, suppty has been regularized and direction has been issued to al! the Collectors to ensure that there is proper supply to all the areas-includirg the rurai areas. 7) The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was assured supply of 1200 litere kerosene oil per month is without any basis, as the letter dated 7-4-2001 does not Indicate anythlng of thfe khid. Even ofterwise, the p^titioner eannotclaim asa matterof right. Thequantity has been fixed on the basis of letter dated 7-4-2001. The purpose ofdistribution of kerosene oil,.as an essential commodity, is to ensure propw supply. Accordingly, supply of keroseneoil of 1000 Itere has been made to the petitioner. The said act of the respondent authorities is just & proper and the same does not warrant any interference. 8) !n view of foregoing, the wrtt petitaon is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto coste. ' Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i