1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 139/2010 IN WRIT PETITOIN NO. 914/2008 Shriram Daulatrao Susar ..versus.. Shri Anil Deshmukh, The Minister, Food and Civil Supplies =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Mr. P.R.Puri, counsel for petitioner. C ORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 27th JULY, 2010. Heard. 2) On 14.7.2008 in Writ Petition No. 914/2008, the learned Single Judge confirmed the impugned order cancelling retail kerosene license of present petitioner. However, in paragraph no. 3, it is observed that the authorities are at liberty to consider whether it is necessary to impose the ultimate punishment of cancellation of license or in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same can be reduced. The exercise was expected to be done within four months from the receipt of writ. 3) Thereafter, on 22nd April, 2010, another Writ 2 Petition No. 1898/2010 was filed by the petitioner which also faced dismissal, as the learned Single Judge found the petitioner has appropriate remedy to adopt and opportunity for the same was granted. 4) The application dated 19.3.2009 moved by the petitioner to the learned Minster display, there was an order in his favour to continue his kerosene vending license. This is factually incorrect. This add adverse spices to the contentions raised by the petitioner. 5) Any action which the petitioner feels having not adhered on behalf of the respondent, should have been within a reasonable period of 12 months, from either 14.7.2008 or from the extended period of 4 months. Both the situations are apparently missing. 6) The contempt petition does not require to serve/cause any notice upon the so called contemnor, as it is barred by limitation. Contempt petition dismissed. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE. Rvjalit