1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2776 OF 2010 Valjibhai S Patel & ors. : Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra & ors. : Respondents Mr. S S Kanetkar for the Petitioners. Mr. C R Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, R. M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 15th April 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Sonawane, AGP, waives notice for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. 3. By this writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray for directions against the Respondent No.5 to forthwith consider and decide the applications filed by the Petitioners for grant of “J” licence which is being insisted by the authorities since 2009. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners have dealers licence issued under the provisions of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 and are dealing in the 2 business of kerosene for last around 20 years and supplying kerosene to individual ration card holders. As per the demand, to produce “J” licence issued in favour of the Petitioners, the Petitioners have applied to Respondent No.5 for issuance of such licence on the assertion that they are eligible to get such licence. The said applications have remained pending since around October 2009 with the Respondent No.5. It is in this background, the Petitioners have approached this Court for directions against the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and for quashing and setting aside letter dated 14/11/2009. 4. Mr.Sonawane, AGP, appearing for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, on instructions of Shri L N Patil, Foodgrain Distribution Officer, Nashik, who is present in Court, states that the authorities are willing to expeditiously dispose of the Applications preferred by the Petitioners for issuance of “J” licence and in the meantime will have no option but to discontinue the supply of kerosene to the Petitioners in absence of “J” licence. We see no reason as to why the Respondents-authorities can be permitted to do so, especially if the Petitioners are conducting business of kerosene on the basis of valid and subsisting licence issued in their favour by the competent authority since last 20 years and no complaints have been received 3 against the Petitioners in that behalf. More over, as required, the Petitioners have already applied for issuance of “J” licence as back as in October 2009, but the said Applications have remained pending with the Respondent No.5. No justification is forthcoming as to why the said applications were not decided promptly. 5. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in over turning the suggestion of the authorities that while the request for grant of “J” licence would be considered expeditiously, the authorities would stop supply of kerosene to the Petitioners till the appropriate decision is taken by the authorities. 6. In the circumstances, we dispose of this Petition with directions to the Respondent No.5 in particular, to consider the applications preferred by the Petitioners for grant of “J” licence expeditiously and in any case not later than four weeks from today as prayed for. Till such time, the supply of Kerosene to the Petitioners on the basis of the licence issued under the Provisions of Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 shall not be disturbed, if the said licences are valid and subsisting 4 7. In the event, the decision of the Respondent No.5 is adverse to the Petitioners, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of service of the said decision on the concerned Petitioners to enable the Petitioners to carry the matter further, if so advised and depending on orders to be issued by the appropriate forum, the authorities shall continue with the supply of Kerosene on the basis of the existing valid and operating licence in favour of the Petitioners. 8. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)